Building/Unit prereq obsoletion/replacement review

[tmv]

Given that they are about all that's been employed lately, they are not abnormal by any means.

Besides, not all is 'like them'. If you take a squad of swords up against a battalion of them, you're pretty likely to get stomped. The power difference is extreme already. If we want to reduce the promotions that get x% combat mod per step difference between them and the other unit, then that's fine - I intended to make them a bit strong at first to make sure they got used and that commenting players would become familiar with them as a result. They could be nerfed a bit and still be balanced and would probably make it more 'immersion friendly'. Very few, truly VERY few, lesser group sizes have any kind of chance against a similar type of force, at least without the promotions to help take advantage of the differences and curtail the negative of being lesser in some measure.

At the moment I think it's +10%/category of difference. +5%/category of difference would probably achieve the results sought without making the promos useless.

I'm not against strong Bottleneck promotions, but even the name implies that they shouldn't work in open terrain. In terrain like forest, hill (or later on mountains, of course), small units can be very powerful, especially in defense. That might even be an important reason why these terrains favor the defender so much in real life - you can decrease troop density without the defenders getting that much weaker. But doing something like that in an open field? That's suicide.

I think the small units already get additional stealth (at least if you play with the other CM options), so that might be fine already, and balancing all the partial combinations of CM would be not only very hard, but probably futile in the end - so different advantages if you play without the stealth option (Without Warning IIRC) wouldn't be necessary, I think. That would address my proposal of additional First Strikes.

Edit: The Swarm promotions OTOH would (at least in real life) be the most powerful in open terrain, of course.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm not against strong Bottleneck promotions, but even the name implies that they shouldn't work in open terrain. In terrain like forest, hill (or later on mountains, of course), small units can be very powerful, especially in defense. That might even be an important reason why these terrains favor the defender so much in real life - you can decrease troop density without the defenders getting that much weaker. But doing something like that in an open field? That's suicide.

I think the small units already get additional stealth (at least if you play with the other CM options), so that might be fine already, and balancing all the partial combinations of CM would be not only very hard, but probably futile in the end - so different advantages if you play without the stealth option (Without Warning IIRC) wouldn't be necessary, I think. That would address my proposal of additional First Strikes.

Edit: The Swarm promotions OTOH would (at least in real life) be the most powerful in open terrain, of course.

I agree that terrain probably should enable or disable the application of these promos, however, this would take a lot of programming and would be very difficult not to keep symmetrical in design (which is exactly why I would not vary the effect between the 'per category shift combat modifier' promotionlines - the symmetry is sacred to the design in this case). All plots are representative of a LOT more territory than just the terrain represented on that plot - no matter where it is, somewhere a good strong bottleneck can be achieved. Mind you, not likely for an attack scenario, but then baiting and fleeing to the right position is something such a unit would do.

I'm not interested in complicating this setup yet - there are other things yet to be done that may address some of these volume matters, such as limiting how much damage can be done in a combat to a larger volume unit before it becomes force split and the battle ends. Upon my return, that's actually a very high priority task.

 

[tmv]

the symmetry is sacred to the design in this case

It is a bit of a pity - too much symmetry was pretty much the drawback of the vanilla religions.

All plots are representative of a LOT more territory than just the terrain represented on that plot

Isn't that ruled out by the terrain defenses? And there is terrain open enough that you wouldn't find a bottleneck position anywhere within the size of a plot.

Mind you, not likely for an attack scenario, but then baiting and fleeing to the right position is something such a unit would do.

Yes, as I already said: First Strikes, or (even better) stealth strikes would be the best option for small units. That way you definitely get to damage the bigger unit. I'm mostly thinking of the stealth property - perhaps that could even be enhanced?

I'm not interested in complicating this setup yet

That's alright. I wasn't trying to make this look urgent. It's not as if this system hasn't been there for quite some time.

 

[Thunderbrd]

too much symmetry was pretty much the drawback of the vanilla religions.

There's a big difference between symmetry and identical copies. Symmetry helps players to 'get the concept' easier and helps designers to keep balance where asymmetry may prove unexpectedly imbalanced.

And there is terrain open enough that you wouldn't find a bottleneck position anywhere within the size of a plot.

I disagree. Given the immense hundreds of miles square that each plot represents. There will always be something like a rock outcropping you can back into or a copse of trees or creek bed you can back into a crack in, something to guard your back and flank if needbe - the promo represents that ability to always find that sort of position and never fight from a place that isn't that sort of situation.

Yes, as I already said: First Strikes, or (even better) stealth strikes would be the best option for small units. That way you definitely get to damage the bigger unit. I'm mostly thinking of the stealth property - perhaps that could even be enhanced?

I'm not adding first strikes to these promotions because it would take added programming and tags to create an effect that scales to the amount of difference between volumes/sizes, which is the only point to these promos. More unit tags are better used on other effects as Alberts2 is already warning we are getting too many for the data limits we have.

You are suggesting stealth strikes, really, which could be a valid simple promotionline to create for extremely small volume units, but then if you don't balance that with other options for larger ones just adds more potential benefit to splitting units. The goal here was to make it no better to split than to merge and vice versa except depending on the situation and goal in doing so.

 

[tmv]

There's a big difference between symmetry and identical copies. Symmetry helps players to 'get the concept' easier and helps designers to keep balance where asymmetry may prove unexpectedly imbalanced.

Right now this can come very close to "identical copies". And you get 3 split units for one original unit. That alone needs to be addressed as an imbalance. You can make the merged units very strong as long as you consider what you have to do to create one (both with respect to amount of units trained and with respect to necessary era to be in).

I disagree. Given the immense hundreds of miles square that each plot represents. There will always be something like a rock outcropping you can back into or a copse of trees or creek bed you can back into a crack in, something to guard your back and flank if needbe - the promo represents that ability to always find that sort of position and never fight from a place that isn't that sort of situation.

That's not what bottleneck is about. It means a protected place (with a very narrow line of defense) that the enemy must pass through in order to get "through" the plot. A simple "escape position" where you are protected but which the enemy can simply ignore allows leapfrogging - the enemy would just leave a "few" watchers behind in case you try to make a stand before your unit has become completely irrelevant.

I'm not adding first strikes to these promotions because it would take added programming and tags to create an effect that scales to the amount of difference between volumes/sizes, which is the only point to these promos. More unit tags are better used on other effects as Alberts2 is already warning we are getting too many for the data limits we have.

No problem with that.

You are suggesting stealth strikes, really, which could be a valid simple promotionline to create for extremely small volume units, but then if you don't balance that with other options for larger ones just adds more potential benefit to splitting units. The goal here was to make it no better to split than to merge and vice versa except depending on the situation and goal in doing so.

You need combined arms, especially when your main unit is so large. You already need additional healer units because large units are slower at recovering IIRC, you can just add one or two "elite" dog units to take care of spotting stealth. It's a bit like naval warfare - Battleships rule the sea until World War 2, but they are terrible at fighting submarines (same with carriers today) - you need to add e.g. destroyers.

Another idea I've had for the distant future of the mod would be the ability of merging dissimilar units once - so you might get the benefits of combined arms in a single unit (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_force) - I understand of course that this would be a very large undertaking, so I certainly wouldn't expect to see this anytime soon (or perhaps even at all).

 

[Thunderbrd]

That alone needs to be addressed as an imbalance

How is that an imbalance when each of those units is a third less powerful as the larger sized one? This also does NOT mean that 3 smaller units can have the slightest hope of wearing down and destroying one of the larger type they were, all three would attack and be completely ineffective and the larger would still be fairly healthy and strong in almost all cases. Combat itself is heavily weighted towards the stronger unit. The Vanilla combat option makes it more possible for weaker units to whittle down more powerful ones but on the core, having split means those 3 units are nearly hopeless against the larger. So the only real benefit to such a split is to delay the larger unit's ability to take the tile it wishes to attack. Even with surround and destroy and all three smaller units taking bottleneck, I don't believe any of them have the capability of truly challenging the larger unit.

Different ratios were tested for the power differences at each category shift. Where we are at is not happenstance but the result of a very long argumentative process.

That's not what bottleneck is about. It means a protected place (with a very narrow line of defense) that the enemy must pass through in order to get "through" the plot. A simple "escape position" where you are protected but which the enemy can simply ignore allows leapfrogging - the enemy would just leave a "few" watchers behind in case you try to make a stand before your unit has become completely irrelevant.

You're overthinking it. Guerrilla tactics aren't entirely about getting a benefit in hill terrain combat either. The promotion is a game effect designed to interact with size matters to deepen the strategic options a unit may have in regards to promotion selections so that you may find a counter for everything but an impossibility of creating an undefeatable unit. In this reference, the bottleneck simply means this small volumed unit knows how to find a spot and choose the battle locations where only one or two enemies can be faced at a time regardless of the size of the opposing force, for example, the way things played out throughout the entire Rambo movie franchise.

A bottleneck as you describe it is just one common example of such a defensive position. A doorway, a closet, a cave, an alcove in a castle wall, the path behind a waterfall, a spot between a few boulders, even just putting your back to a wall or into a corner, all qualify as ways the unit could gain this benefit if he insists on ensuring the fight is only stood for when it's to his tactical advantage. The name is bottleneck as a generic overall term for this since promos need to be named by one word. (or two but one is better)

When countered by the Swarm promotion(s) on a heavily merged group, the heavily merged group is almost always also far more powerful, even against heroes, because it has the benefit of all those merges also having increased the base strength tremendously. Sure you talk about the production it takes to make heavily merged units (which is why units are overall cheaper on size matters) but the counter of extremely high quality individual units is usually found in completely unique units, so which is really the greater loss if taken down?

you can just add one or two "elite" dog units to take care of spotting stealth.

Dogs and any other sensory or stealth unit were never supposed to be able to merge. SO insists the imbalance in splitting them is fine to exploit so long as he can merge his packs.

As for the merging of dissimilar units, I have contemplated the eventual addition of a hybrid unit mod that allows you to merge 3 units of differing types into another predefined mixed unit type. Not a trivial modification of course. The code really wouldn't allow for a more generic blending approach otherwise because a base unit type is always a big part of a unit's definition and those base types must be defined in XML. Consider the math on how many new units we would need to define for that though, even if we do just stick to basic units in combinations, like sword-spear-axe.

 

[tmv]

This also does NOT mean that 3 smaller units can have the slightest hope of wearing down and destroying one of the larger type they were, all three would attack and be completely ineffective and the larger would still be fairly healthy and strong in almost all cases.

As it should be. This is a big part of strategy ("March separated, strike together." - apparently this quote is better known in Germany and comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Königgrätz). Especially on the defense the smaller units should have very few options of getting out of trouble. But if the smaller units actually get additional stealth, it might require some rebalancing - nevertheless, this would only end up deepening strategy, which is always a good idea as far as I'm concerned.

As the attacker, especially with additional stealth, the smaller units should (at least after such a rebalancing) have fair chances of winning the entire battle - in this case it's really more like concentration on the battlefield, like the quote above means.

Perhaps the surround&destroy bonus should be limited to attackers (or at least nerfed with defenders), because as an attacker you're closing in with the other units, whereas if the other unit attacks it strikes away from the other surrounding units.

In this reference, the bottleneck simply means this small volumed unit knows how to find a spot and choose the battle locations

Wouldn't that make bottlenecks at least defense only?

Sure you talk about the production it takes to make heavily merged units (which is why units are overall cheaper on size matters)

It would take 243 batallions to make a millions unit, and that is not even the end of the line. Even with a massive empire, losing such a unit is not just a setback, but an absolute disaster.

Dogs and any other sensory or stealth unit were never supposed to be able to merge.

I wasn't talking about merging dogs. I meant that a good strategist should now to not let such a huge unit move alone, but have supporters in the same stack. Healers of all needed forms are a good idea, since healing is slowed IIRC, and spotters should also be considered to avoid such a thing as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest - plus a field commander, if you have one. And hope that the enemy doesn't have nukes!

As for the merging of dissimilar units, I have contemplated the eventual addition of a hybrid unit mod that allows you to merge 3 units of differing types into another predefined mixed unit type. Not a trivial modification of course. The code really wouldn't allow for a more generic blending approach otherwise because a base unit type is always a big part of a unit's definition and those base types must be defined in XML. Consider the math on how many new units we would need to define for that though, even if we do just stick to basic units in combinations, like sword-spear-axe.

Yes, I really didn't think that this would be easy, but with the different unit types slowly getting more and more roles these hybrids could become extremely powerful. Not to mention that these ad hoc formations apparently have become a standard way of doing things (e.g. tank-tank-modern inf. or vice versa).

 

[Thunderbrd]

But if the smaller units actually get additional stealt

They do. Size is also a form of invisibility.

As the attacker, especially with additional stealth, the smaller units should (at least after such a rebalancing) have fair chances of winning the entire battle - in this case it's really more like concentration on the battlefield, like the quote above means.

It's for strike teams to purposefully take advantage of such combat. Other types aren't usually trained for that (though criminals often do as well.)

Wouldn't that make bottlenecks at least defense only?

Did Rambo only defend?

It would take 243 batallions to make a millions unit, and that is not even the end of the line. Even with a massive empire, losing such a unit is not just a setback, but an absolute disaster.

I've often thought to limit the amount of merges to an absolute cap of 3 or 4 but I've never played far enough in to see how play gets past medieval. I do suspect any attempt to keep up with merging can probably become a problem for player and AI alike beyond this point.

I wasn't talking about merging dogs. I meant that a good strategist should now to not let such a huge unit move alone, but have supporters in the same stack. Healers of all needed forms are a good idea, since healing is slowed IIRC, and spotters should also be considered to avoid such a thing as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest - plus a field commander, if you have one. And hope that the enemy doesn't have nukes!

Well yes, that's definitely part of the intended quandries the system presents.

Yes, I really didn't think that this would be easy, but with the different unit types slowly getting more and more roles these hybrids could become extremely powerful. Not to mention that these ad hoc formations apparently have become a standard way of doing things (e.g. tank-tank-modern inf. or vice versa).

Setting up the coding wouldn't be too hard for this, to enable the system, but then the XML is an effort on the scale of ginormous and then how to instruct the AI on this would be another major matter to consider. From a perspective of inclusion in this mod, it's hard to see that happening.

 

[tmv]

It's for strike teams to purposefully take advantage of such combat. Other types aren't usually trained for that (though criminals often do as well.)

In the battle I linked to this is what happened. And although this battle is probably not very well known outside (Central) Europe, it was one of the defining battles of the 1860s, quite comparable to Gettysburg - almost exactly 3 years after that battle (finally deciding the struggle for dominance within Germany between Prussia and Austria after 126 years, setting the stage for the upcoming war with France - which was a major reason in itself for the First World War, enabling Italy to get Venice even after losing their own battles, and some people have even called Hitler Austria's revenge for this battle).

Did Rambo only defend?

On the scope of this game: yes, he did. This game would probably see the events of the movie as a single battle, even in modern times.

I've often thought to limit the amount of merges to an absolute cap of 3 or 4 but I've never played far enough in to see how play gets past medieval. I do suspect any attempt to keep up with merging can probably become a problem for player and AI alike beyond this point.

It would be a pity, because it might even be fun to see how far you can go, but I understand this. And the number of single units that would probably have to be displayed would be difficult to display on a single plot as well, I think.

Setting up the coding wouldn't be too hard for this, to enable the system, but then the XML is an effort on the scale of ginormous and then how to instruct the AI on this would be another major matter to consider. From a perspective of inclusion in this mod, it's hard to see that happening.

Perhaps true stack battles (like in CtP 1/2) would be an alternative, although by no means easy to implement themselves. Or - wasn't there the idea of a "battle map" as another potential application of multi maps once? That would at least be easier than XML tables that would even stress true 64bit games.

 

[Thunderbrd]

On the scope of this game: yes, he did. This game would probably see the events of the movie as a single battle, even in modern times.

I don't agree. He took an offensive role in many of those battles. Simply put, the promotion could be named 'Bottleneck and numerous other strategies to take advantage of a larger volume force' but that would be a bit long for a promotion name.

It would be a pity, because it might even be fun to see how far you can go, but I understand this. And the number of single units that would probably have to be displayed would be difficult to display on a single plot as well, I think.

1) I haven't capped it yet but we'll see at some point if it needs to be.
2) The number of single units can get quite high and each one only counts for a group size category at full health so it's still only up to some 13 at most I think. I saw a mod that put more than that there.

Perhaps true stack battles (like in CtP 1/2) would be an alternative, although by no means easy to implement themselves. Or - wasn't there the idea of a "battle map" as another potential application of multi maps once? That would at least be easier than XML tables that would even stress true 64bit games.

There's some 'teamwork combat' among units on a plot that is planned for inclusion into the full picture of the Combat Mod to account for this. The option is currently named 'Strength in Numbers' though I think I might have to rename it to diminish confusion with Size Matters. It's actually not far from being implementable but it would be fairly exploitable with current AI programming. The tags for the rules on it are in place but if history proves, one modification tends to mean 30 hrs of work to setup then 3000 to debug and 5000 more to adjust to suit what players want to see adjusted as a result. It might only take a weekend to actually implement though, but the AI requires the indepth army building adjustments I've been planning for a while that would take a season of the year or two to accomplish.

 

[tmv]

He took an offensive role in many of those battles.

He didn't want the fight to happen at all - which makes him the defender "by default". That is what I meant: If you are the attacker, you carry the fight to the enemy. Which means you cannot choose the exact spot - the enemy is already there. You can wish for the fight to happen in a different place, but if the enemy doesn't accomodate you, you cannot help it. You fight where the enemy wishes to or you don't fight at all. If the (numerically stronger) enemy occupies a completely open place, how exactly are you going to transfer the fight to a different place?

Rambo went into a rather dense forest, which is one of the most suitable locations for a small group (or a single person) to defend. He was going to stay there, whereas the police (and later on the National Guard) "had" to get him out. If the other side had just occupied an open field, Rambo would not have attacked at all.

The number of single units can get quite high and each one only counts for a group size category at full health so it's still only up to some 13 at most I think. I saw a mod that put more than that there.

OK - astounding, but if it's possible ...

full picture of the Combat Mod

Is there an overview about the planned parts of the Combat Mod somewhere? Just curious...

The option is currently named 'Strength in Numbers' though I think I might have to rename it to diminish confusion with Size Matters.

Yes, that name would confuse people. Especially because half the SM part of the Combat Mod deals more with numbers than with physical size.

The tags for the rules on it are in place but if history proves, one modification tends to mean 30 hrs of work to setup then 3000 to debug and 5000 more to adjust to suit what players want to see adjusted as a result.

Isn't that the truth with any kind of (complex) programming? I certainly don't blame you for running out of steam, not to mention that C++ isn't exactly a nice language to work with. I just hope that you don't leave for good.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I just hope that you don't leave for good.

I can appreciate the sentiment. I suppose I like C++ because it's the one language I now know somewhat. As for how I'm feeling... I'm not sure yet. What I don't like is that no matter what I do it only opens up more to need to do and I'm not really feeling there's a return in it right now. It's too easy to make a mess and then be stuck for a year or more trying to clean it up. I've begun to feel stuck in a rut and life is melting away as I fail to achieve anything noteworthy.

Is there an overview about the planned parts of the Combat Mod somewhere? Just curious...

Um... kinda. There is the current option list that isn't all visible that suggest some of the plan and the original plan was fully blasted out in long written essays which are still linked to in the modder's documents first post but a lot of that plan has evolved since. Otherwise, I've stated it all but in a very fragmented way throughout this forum.

He didn't want the fight to happen at all - which makes him the defender "by default". That is what I meant: If you are the attacker, you carry the fight to the enemy. Which means you cannot choose the exact spot - the enemy is already there. You can wish for the fight to happen in a different place, but if the enemy doesn't accomodate you, you cannot help it. You fight where the enemy wishes to or you don't fight at all. If the (numerically stronger) enemy occupies a completely open place, how exactly are you going to transfer the fight to a different place?

Bait and ambush. Storm limited positions. Again, the promotion isn't JUST to reflect bottlenecks.

 

[tmv]

I suppose I like C++ because it's the one language I now know somewhat.

It's not a bad language per se, but it requires a lot of attention, especially if you work with pointers (which you almost have to do with any larger project). If you confuse an address with a regular variable even once, the entire system can come crashing down, and that's if you're lucky (if you're not, the system can actually work with your mistake, and you're in uncharted territory). It's also the language for getting "close to the hardware", unless you work with assembler, so very often you have no choice.

There are a few languages that are pretty close to C(++) when you have a choice. Java doesn't have (direct access to) pointers, and takes care of the memory it uses (garbage collection), which is rather nice. It's also not OS dependent (although it doesn't run on smartphones) and there are many free libraries for many purposes online. Unfortunately, it's apparently very hard to make secure, so Oracle has limited its use in the last few years to the point where it might not live for much longer. For direct comparisons see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Java_and_C++ or https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C++_Programming/Programming_Languages/Comparisons/Java

C# has many of the same advantages as Java, although it is OS dependent (and originally was Windows only), and it isn't going anywhere. It's also directly integrated in Visual Studio. For comparison to C++ see https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/uploadfile/gtomar/difference-between-cpp-and-C-Sharp/ or https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C++_Programming/Programming_Languages/Comparisons/C_Sharp - direct comparison to Java is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java

What I don't like is that no matter what I do it only opens up more to need to do and I'm not really feeling there's a return in it right now. It's too easy to make a mess and then be stuck for a year or more trying to clean it up.

That's probably a worse problem with big projects like the CM mods or (much worse) the transformation to a completely new game. If you feel like that right now perhaps you should really put some things here on hold. I hope you get better.

Um... kinda. There is the current option list that isn't all visible that suggest some of the plan and the original plan was fully blasted out in long written essays which are still linked to in the modder's documents first post but a lot of that plan has evolved since. Otherwise, I've stated it all but in a very fragmented way throughout this forum.

OK.

Bait and ambush. Storm limited positions. Again, the promotion isn't JUST to reflect bottlenecks.

I don't think that would work with a capable general on the other side.

 

[Yudishtira]

I don't think that would work with a capable general on the other side.

And yet you highlight Koniggratz, which was a Russian roulette gamble by Moltke, which went unpunished due to Benedek's ... extreme mediocrity.

 

[tmv]

And yet you highlight Koniggratz, which was a Russian roulette gamble by Moltke, which went unpunished due to Benedek's ... extreme mediocrity.

It became this gamble because the telegraph lines were out. Moltke was extremely technophile (he is the only 18th century born who had his voice recorded - in the 1880s, I think) and sometimes relied on "modern" technology a bit much, which is still a lot better than many of his successors who were the complete opposite. But when this happened, the 3 Prussian armies were no longer acting in a coherent manner until he managed to establish contact once more (this time the "old-fashioned way", with dispatch riders). But the Austrians had another disadvantage: They still used muzzle loaders, whereas the Prussians already had "needle guns" which were breech loaders and could fire more than twice as often, which resulted in heavy Austrian losses in the prior battles and led to a massive downfall of fighting spirit. Benedek was badly trained and still managed to get most of his army (180,000 out of the original 215,000) away from this battle.

Besides, "knowing your enemy" has been the foundation of many military victories since Cannae.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

I've noticed that the Rope Factory doesn't produce rope, instead it actually needs rope from the Rope Weaver's Hut (which never gets obsoleted) to function. Is this working as intended?

 

[raxo2222]

I've noticed that the Rope Factory doesn't produce rope, instead it actually needs rope from the Rope Weaver's Hut (which never gets obsoleted) to function. Is this working as intended?

@Dancing Hoskuld did that.
Rope/Bead/Toy factories are like this.
Essentially you can build huts everywhere, workshops in half of cities and factories in quarter of cities.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I've noticed that the Rope Factory doesn't produce rope, instead it actually needs rope from the Rope Weaver's Hut (which never gets obsoleted) to function. Is this working as intended?

It is the same for toys, lacquerware, beads etc. It is one way of "fixing": the obsoleting resource problem when the old building goes obsolete before you get a chance to build the new. In my attempt

• the older buildings remain
• there are fewer of the newer ones eg toy guild requires 3 toy maker huts; toy factory requires 3 toy guilds
  
• the newer ones only provide the changes in yields/commerces not the bonus

Thunderbrd has an idea for a different way of doing it. My way is in a module so that it c an be removed when his is ready.