[BtS MOD] Wolfshanze 1850-1920 Enhancement Mod v2.0
- Thread starter Wolfshanze
- Start date
killmeplease
Mk Z on Steam
phungus420, thanks for that info! i somehow missed the fact that AI does not use mg's. And can you please explain wthat each of these UNITAI's means? there only CITY_DEFENCE is obvious for me 
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
I'm honestly not sure, but I can make some educated guesses. I think Counter refers to when the AI wants to build (or use) something to counter a specific unit type, in the case of MGs Gun units. Also of note, I've never seen the AI give the MGs the UnitAI_Counter function (you can see the UnitAI a unit is using in cheatmode), so I'm pretty sure it is an offensive and defensive UnitAI. You would think it would make sense not to add that tag in the infos file then, but I've found it builds alot less MGs when you leave it out, so I put it in, once the AI builds the buggers it knows how to use them and doesn't get confused.
Now where I've screwed up with messing with the UnitAI tags was adding more functions to privateers, that just didn't work well. I think alot of that stems from the fact the AI just doesn't understand how to use privateers in general though.
Now where I've screwed up with messing with the UnitAI tags was adding more functions to privateers, that just didn't work well. I think alot of that stems from the fact the AI just doesn't understand how to use privateers in general though.
Wodan
Deity
Don't be a dorkI guess you haven't seen the new Poland lately then!
Never thought Charlemagne looked like Charlemagne anyways.
Obviously you haven't tried v2.71 of the Wolfshanze Mod... shame on you!
... you know me better than that. I'm still in my first game, which I decided to be marathon to get more use out of the cool unit graphics. And, guess what civ I'm playing? Thus, since I'm playing it, I would never get to see my own leaderhead....Wodan
Wodan
Deity
Early tanks in WWI actually sucked rocks. They got eaten up until generals figured out how to use them. Generals at first thought that they were mobile fortresses to be used in penny packets to put some stiffness in infantry units. Didn't quite work out. Once generals used them en masse with a rolling wall of tanks, that's when they cleaned up.why early tank does only have 22 strength?
it's only 2 points bigger than infantry's. how could they to brake the front on Somma with such a crappy stats?
maybe give them +25% vs infantry bonus?
(Saw a show on Military Channel exactly on this topic.)
Wodan
Don't be a dork
Um, don't you see your own leaderhead right at the very start ?
Wodan
Deity
No, I hit enter without looking at the screen.Um, don't you see your own leaderhead right at the very start ?
Wodan
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Very good Phungus... I'm going to implement this in the Wolfshanze Mod... probably give the Early Tanks a +25% against MGs too so their role is specialized (so nobody can say they are useless anymore)... that will raise their strength from Str-22 to Str-27.5 against MGs (default WWII tank is Str-28).
Oh, and I'll be adding seven new custom Polish flavor units in the next release (along with others of course, but Poland will get a big boost).
Oh, and I'll be adding seven new custom Polish flavor units in the next release (along with others of course, but Poland will get a big boost).
killmeplease
Mk Z on Steam
Wolfshanze,
i have a few offers on units parameters:
- early tanks must suffer -25% strength attacking hills and forests due to lack of mobility
- machine gunners and infantry must have bonuses fighting cavalry (MGs 50%, infantry 25%). historically cavalry could do nothing with MGs, but in game their strengths are almost equal
also it would be great to introduce an early artillery units (steel+rifling, w/o physics requirement) like those were in civ2
i have a few offers on units parameters:
- early tanks must suffer -25% strength attacking hills and forests due to lack of mobility
- machine gunners and infantry must have bonuses fighting cavalry (MGs 50%, infantry 25%). historically cavalry could do nothing with MGs, but in game their strengths are almost equal
also it would be great to introduce an early artillery units (steel+rifling, w/o physics requirement) like those were in civ2
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Early tanks are nerfed-enough as-is (what with 1-movement ability). I don't think I need to nerf them more, and if you do that, you might as well start talking about nerfing all horse and tank units in rough terrain.Wolfshanze,
i have a few offers on units parameters:
- early tanks must suffer -25% strength attacking hills and forests due to lack of mobility
- machine gunners and infantry must have bonuses fighting cavalry (MGs 50%, infantry 25%). historically cavalry could do nothing with MGs, but in game their strengths are almost equal
also it would be great to introduce an early artillery units (steel+rifling, w/o physics requirement) like those were in civ2
As for MGs... they already have a 50% attack bonus against gunpowder units... which includes infantry.
I do like the idea of perhaps giving them a bonus against horse units too though... it would really force people to start using tanks or artillery against MG nests!
As for Artillery... it's always been available prior to WWI units and can be mixed with Riflemen... people just get lazy and put it off... I see no reason for another artillery unit when too many people put-off artillery to begin with.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
Personally I've modded the MGs to have a bonus vs Cav. Historical and all that, MGs really did spell the death of horse cavalry. It's a pretty drastic change though, changes the industrial rush alot (you need tanks or arty, cav and inf wol't cut it against a couple MGs). I recomend you test it to make sure you like it before you release the Wolf mod like that.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Yeah, well Artillery is always available fairly early, so I see no worry about it (and it's always effective against MGs)... I'm going to increase MGs to have a bonus vs Cavalry, but at the same time I'll give a bonus to early tanks vs MGs... so there will be symmetry in play balance... a lot of folks refuse to upgrade from cavalry to early tanks because of the loss of mobility, but if MGs spell death to cavalry, and early tanks are even more effective against MGs, then I think we'll have both a historical and game-play solution that works well.
Wodan
Deity
I second the notion about testing.
But I question the question about testing the cav penalty. Come on... if cavalry is a magic solution to MGs that is all of a sudden nerfed and now the player is SOL, then something's wrong.
What we're really talking about here is the AI. Is the AI thrown off kilter either on the defensive or on the offensive, with these changes?
Seems to me that the change to make the AI build more MGs is a good one. The second question is whether a change to make MGs better on defense vs cav going to screw the AI? On the defensive, it'll only make them more effective. So defensively it'll help the AI.
On the offensive, AI vs AI... well, the AI usually ends up with lots of upgraded units. So, all the mobile units are going to end up cav. Which will now be dogmeat vs the defending MGs. But the AI can calculate this, so it simply won't attack. Not with cav, anyway. Seems to me that is a good thing. We don't want the AI sending its cav in ill-advised attacks vs MGs, whether or not the defensive bonus is there. We want the AI to save those cav to fight against the human.
Now, in this mod, mounted units can also upgrade to tanks. Which is fine, and there was much rejoicing all around. But is the AI smart enough to do the upgrade, especially seeing as how the MGs have a bonus vs cav? Beats me.
Wodan
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
There's plenty of ill-advised attacks the AI can/won't do against well-defended cities/forts.
This is less an issue of Type-Unit-X sucks against Type-Unit-Y, then it simply is about who's got a tech lead.
Does the AI send Horsemen against Pikemen? Wow... talk about a stupid attack! No, he's better suited upgrading to Knights and/or using Catapults and Trebuchets to get rid of a well-defended town.
I don't see it being any differant with MGs... if the odds suck against MGs, the AI needs to either use artillery or upgrade to early tanks which have good odds against MGs...
I'm probably going to implement the higher use of MGs for the AI along with the other changes (MGs good against cavalry and early tank bonus against MGs).
I just so happen to be playing a game right now and I'm in the Industrial age... not too far from getting MGs for both me and the AI... so any turn now these new rules can get get tested in-game by me anyways.
This is less an issue of Type-Unit-X sucks against Type-Unit-Y, then it simply is about who's got a tech lead.
Does the AI send Horsemen against Pikemen? Wow... talk about a stupid attack! No, he's better suited upgrading to Knights and/or using Catapults and Trebuchets to get rid of a well-defended town.
I don't see it being any differant with MGs... if the odds suck against MGs, the AI needs to either use artillery or upgrade to early tanks which have good odds against MGs...
I'm probably going to implement the higher use of MGs for the AI along with the other changes (MGs good against cavalry and early tank bonus against MGs).
I just so happen to be playing a game right now and I'm in the Industrial age... not too far from getting MGs for both me and the AI... so any turn now these new rules can get get tested in-game by me anyways.
Wodan
Deity
All right, new topic. This is something that has bugged me before, but I'm just now able to articulate it well, I think. Anyway.
When I build a unit, I'm aware of tech progress up until now. So, how do I build a "Pre-Dreadnought"? What's a Dreadnought? I don't know, I haven't even conceived of it yet. But, I'm building a Preview of it.
Makes no sense.
There's got to be a better term. Dunno what. I need to dig into Wikipedia. Be back in a bit.
Wodan
When I build a unit, I'm aware of tech progress up until now. So, how do I build a "Pre-Dreadnought"? What's a Dreadnought? I don't know, I haven't even conceived of it yet. But, I'm building a Preview of it.
Makes no sense.
There's got to be a better term. Dunno what. I need to dig into Wikipedia. Be back in a bit.
Wodan
Wodan
Deity
Okay, after a buttload of wiki reading, I would like to propose "Early Battleship" as opposed to "Pre-Dreadnought".
Wodan
Wodan
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Didn't you check the in-game Civilopedia? I thought I covered it in there! (as I do with all my new units)
A "Pre-dreadnought" battleship is the general term for all of the types of sea going battleships built between the mid-1890s and 1905. Pre-dreadnoughts replaced the ironclad warships of the 1870s and 1880s. Built from steel, and protected by hardened steel armor, pre-dreadnought battleships carried a main battery of very heavy guns in turrets supported by one or more secondary batteries of lighter weapons. They were powered by coal-fueled triple-expansion steam engines.
Obviously the term "Pre-Dreadnought" was not used at the time, because there were no dreadnoughts to "Pre". The term is a reverse-terminology applied after the fact, but commonly accepted as an actual definition of a ship class/specification.
The term "Battleship" is a very, VERY loose term for a type of warship... as countless ships across over a century of naval warfare have all been called "Battleships" at one point or another. The Age of the Ironclad is more-or-less when the term first started to be used, and (at the time) some ships were simply called "Battleships"... same thing during the time of the Pre-Dreadnoughts... they too were refered to as "Battleships"... so-in WWI, once again... modern ships of the time were called "Battleships"... and of course, in WWII... "Battleships" once again was a term used.
Sure, I could call Pre-Dreadnoughts "Early Battleships"... but that term could also be applied to the earlier Ironclad age Battleships, or it could be applied to the WWI Dreadnoughts (as early battleships)... it's a term that could be used, surely... but the term "Pre-Dreadnought" is a very specific term, commonly accepted in naval war colleges and in history books as an appropriate term to call a very specific design philosophy of the late 19th century and dawn of the 20th century... it's a very specific term, and it's not erroneous to call a ship a "Pre-Dreadnought".
Now if the term bugs you that much, by all means... it's a simple change in the Civ4UnitInfos.xml... just go to the Pre-Dreadnought entry and change it to read "Early Battleship" in Description (you can [and should] leave everything else as "Pre-Dreadnought"). "Pre-Dreadnought" is, however, a very legitimate term to call a type of warship... it's not something made-up... any naval historian worth his salt can tell you what one is... call yourself cultured now that you know what the term is!
P.S.
Do you need me to go-over the "Dreadnought" age as well? Or did you find that out in your research?
A "Pre-dreadnought" battleship is the general term for all of the types of sea going battleships built between the mid-1890s and 1905. Pre-dreadnoughts replaced the ironclad warships of the 1870s and 1880s. Built from steel, and protected by hardened steel armor, pre-dreadnought battleships carried a main battery of very heavy guns in turrets supported by one or more secondary batteries of lighter weapons. They were powered by coal-fueled triple-expansion steam engines.
Obviously the term "Pre-Dreadnought" was not used at the time, because there were no dreadnoughts to "Pre". The term is a reverse-terminology applied after the fact, but commonly accepted as an actual definition of a ship class/specification.
The term "Battleship" is a very, VERY loose term for a type of warship... as countless ships across over a century of naval warfare have all been called "Battleships" at one point or another. The Age of the Ironclad is more-or-less when the term first started to be used, and (at the time) some ships were simply called "Battleships"... same thing during the time of the Pre-Dreadnoughts... they too were refered to as "Battleships"... so-in WWI, once again... modern ships of the time were called "Battleships"... and of course, in WWII... "Battleships" once again was a term used.
Sure, I could call Pre-Dreadnoughts "Early Battleships"... but that term could also be applied to the earlier Ironclad age Battleships, or it could be applied to the WWI Dreadnoughts (as early battleships)... it's a term that could be used, surely... but the term "Pre-Dreadnought" is a very specific term, commonly accepted in naval war colleges and in history books as an appropriate term to call a very specific design philosophy of the late 19th century and dawn of the 20th century... it's a very specific term, and it's not erroneous to call a ship a "Pre-Dreadnought".
Now if the term bugs you that much, by all means... it's a simple change in the Civ4UnitInfos.xml... just go to the Pre-Dreadnought entry and change it to read "Early Battleship" in Description (you can [and should] leave everything else as "Pre-Dreadnought"). "Pre-Dreadnought" is, however, a very legitimate term to call a type of warship... it's not something made-up... any naval historian worth his salt can tell you what one is... call yourself cultured now that you know what the term is!
P.S.
Do you need me to go-over the "Dreadnought" age as well? Or did you find that out in your research?
Wodan
Deity
I knew what the term was before I asked the question.
The problem is that people of the time period in question did not use the term.
I don't care if historians today call it that... when I have advanced in the game to the period of ca. 1900 or whatever, I don't call them "Pre-Dreadnoughts". I call them... what?
Wodan
The problem is that people of the time period in question did not use the term.
I don't care if historians today call it that... when I have advanced in the game to the period of ca. 1900 or whatever, I don't call them "Pre-Dreadnoughts". I call them... what?
Wodan
cephalo
Deity
I guess you'd have to call them 'Pre-Stealth Missle Cruisers'.
