-
Our friends from AlphaCentauri2.info are in need of technical assistance. If you have experience with the LAMP stack and some hours to spare, please help them out and post here.
C2C Combat Mod Introduction - Step I (SubCombat Classes)
- Thread starter Thunderbrd
- Start date
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Why would wooden ships have steam, combustion, nuclear?
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@TB
So I was notices many animals you put UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL_COMBAT_THICK_SKINNED
What are you defining as Thick Skinned? Becuase some like a Monkey, Anteater, etc don't seem very thick skinned. Fluffy maybe, but thick skinned?
On a side note I removed the climbing tree for the anteater since its a giant anteater and not an arboreal type (aka Tamanduas).
So I was notices many animals you put UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL_COMBAT_THICK_SKINNED
What are you defining as Thick Skinned? Becuase some like a Monkey, Anteater, etc don't seem very thick skinned. Fluffy maybe, but thick skinned?
On a side note I removed the climbing tree for the anteater since its a giant anteater and not an arboreal type (aka Tamanduas).
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah, I might be being a little too liberal but I figured any creature that had a fairly tough hide could qualify. It's certainly not an easy one to define the line in the gray zone on. Perhaps we should have another category on that like 'tough hide' being a step below 'thick skin' or something.
Don't mind on the anteater change. As I was reading the pedia on anteaters it strikes me that this species has hardly any real advantage when trying to defend itself against a large predator and makes for great big happy meals for tigers and such. They mentioned that they climb which seemed to make sense that they would have some sort of defense along those lines but it was a little vague and didn't specify that the climbing aspect didn't include the bigger ones. I don't KNOW a whole lot about them so was just going on what I read there.
Don't mind on the anteater change. As I was reading the pedia on anteaters it strikes me that this species has hardly any real advantage when trying to defend itself against a large predator and makes for great big happy meals for tigers and such. They mentioned that they climb which seemed to make sense that they would have some sort of defense along those lines but it was a little vague and didn't specify that the climbing aspect didn't include the bigger ones. I don't KNOW a whole lot about them so was just going on what I read there.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Well thankfully in real life giant anteaters don't encounter tigers since tigers live in Asia and giant ant eaters live in South America. Jaguars and Pumas are what big cats they would encounter. As for defense those massive claws that are used to break into ant and termite mounds are pretty dangerous.
So yeah.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
So they should have a roar ability too then eh? Nice!
I still think Tough Hide might make a good alternative to Thick Skin. So you'd have a hierarchy:
Tough Hide is not quite as strong as Thick Skin which is not quite as strong as Armor Plated.
If there's no objection I'll get to auditing what I've done so far on that before moving further.
I still think Tough Hide might make a good alternative to Thick Skin. So you'd have a hierarchy:
Tough Hide is not quite as strong as Thick Skin which is not quite as strong as Armor Plated.
If there's no objection I'll get to auditing what I've done so far on that before moving further.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I wanted to take a brief moment to update the team on what's taking place on this project.
After nearly getting halfway through the unit list with weapon and weapon use definitions I began to see certain patterns emerging and predictors of problem issues with the weapon side of equipments. Throughout this process, which is VERY laborious btw, I kept hearing n47's statement about how most projects are scrapped due to poor prior planning echoing about in the back of my mind.
So I started thinking more on these complexities. In the process I realized I was setting myself up for some serious problems in the mechanism. Therefore, I've had to commit to a vast restructuring of the weapon, fighting style, animal combats and so on.
The way it's going to work is a little different now and I'll need to start over on the assignments on that portion... doesn't bother me much since it'll be a little more streamlined than it has been and all the work so far helped to open the eyes to the bigger issues.
To help y'all understand how this is going to work now, the Attack Forms category of CCs is going to be subservient to the weapons used WHEN they are actually IN use. As the appropriate weapons are in-use in battle, the appropriate damage styles will be utilized.
Weapon Methods (Attack Styles) will be a definition on the unit and largely represent the manner in which units approach battle... do they stand back and fire as long as they can (Distance Primary), charge in and close the gap(Melee Only), approach but fire off as they do so(Distance Secondary), or maintain distance combat even if they are in point blank melee range - immediately fleeing if their ammunition is exhausted (Distance Only)? Do they simply go in and destroy themselves like missiles do(Warhead)?
Weapon Style defines the arrangements of weaponry in each of what is now 4 'types' of combat, H2H (Hand to Hand Combat with the preferred H2H weapons), H2H Sidearm (or simply Sidearm, used in case the primary H2H weapon set is for some reason impossible to utilize), Distance (Distance Combat with the preferred Distance weapons), and Backup (The weapon set the unit shifts to if in distance combat and has run out of ammunition or has had their primary distance weapon destroyed for whatever reason.)
Combat will generally contain both Distance and H2H phases and dynamics will control when why and how combat goes from one to another phase - much of these dynamics will depend on the Weapon Methods of the units in the battle.
The weapons combat classes define now quite specifically the sorts of weapons the unit carries and uses in each of the 4 phases (including a 5th A2G(Air to Ground) for Air units and a 6th, Detonation, for units that destroy themselves as soon as they reach their objective.) The weapons classes directly control what the unit can and will equip itself with and may be changed out by skill promo options. As the weapon equipments are possessed by the unit, they will define the damage types(Attack Forms) and modifiers for their particular combat phases.
Units will maintain sets of modifiers for each of the Combat Phases independantly and simultaneously and when battle phases change, the unit statistics won't have to change but will switch to the compiled modifiers for that specific phase of battle.
For example:
I have a Rifleman. His Weapon Method is Distance Primary. So he'll stand and fire as long as he can and won't bother to approach unless he's attacking, and even then won't do so as quickly as he can. His Distance weapons is a rifle and the rifle is giving him a Distance Puncture modifier, Distance Accuracy modifier, Distance Combat modifier (strength modifier) and a Distance Damage modifier (Damage modifiers still pending coding). These will be in effect in the battle as long as he's in distance range and he's still got enough ammo for the rifle.
However, he's fighting a unit that is H2H Only and the unit approaches and engages with him. At this point, both units switch to using their H2H modifiers from their primary H2H weapon set. The Rifleman starts using his Rifle Butt promotion and gains the modifiers from that.
Shield promo modifiers become conditional to the unit's weapon methods so as to make them depend on whether they are 'in use' or not.
This method will probably mean even more promo definitions but not more promo buttons and will keep a number of places where there would otherwise be ambiguity from being unworkable.
Multiple weapon systems like dual weapon wielders and vehicles will have allow more than one weapon to fall into the same distance or h2h configuration but some tags like puncture will evaluate the highest among its multiple weapons and apply only the best while others like a damage modifier, will be additive so that additional allowed weapons are desirable for the unit.
Anyhow... this rethink took some time and put me back on the planning a bit but saved a lot of time in the future.
And yes, I'm horrified of the complexity it's going to mean trying to work it all out on the odds mechanism. But I think it can and should be done.
After nearly getting halfway through the unit list with weapon and weapon use definitions I began to see certain patterns emerging and predictors of problem issues with the weapon side of equipments. Throughout this process, which is VERY laborious btw, I kept hearing n47's statement about how most projects are scrapped due to poor prior planning echoing about in the back of my mind.
So I started thinking more on these complexities. In the process I realized I was setting myself up for some serious problems in the mechanism. Therefore, I've had to commit to a vast restructuring of the weapon, fighting style, animal combats and so on.
The way it's going to work is a little different now and I'll need to start over on the assignments on that portion... doesn't bother me much since it'll be a little more streamlined than it has been and all the work so far helped to open the eyes to the bigger issues.
To help y'all understand how this is going to work now, the Attack Forms category of CCs is going to be subservient to the weapons used WHEN they are actually IN use. As the appropriate weapons are in-use in battle, the appropriate damage styles will be utilized.
Weapon Methods (Attack Styles) will be a definition on the unit and largely represent the manner in which units approach battle... do they stand back and fire as long as they can (Distance Primary), charge in and close the gap(Melee Only), approach but fire off as they do so(Distance Secondary), or maintain distance combat even if they are in point blank melee range - immediately fleeing if their ammunition is exhausted (Distance Only)? Do they simply go in and destroy themselves like missiles do(Warhead)?
Weapon Style defines the arrangements of weaponry in each of what is now 4 'types' of combat, H2H (Hand to Hand Combat with the preferred H2H weapons), H2H Sidearm (or simply Sidearm, used in case the primary H2H weapon set is for some reason impossible to utilize), Distance (Distance Combat with the preferred Distance weapons), and Backup (The weapon set the unit shifts to if in distance combat and has run out of ammunition or has had their primary distance weapon destroyed for whatever reason.)
Combat will generally contain both Distance and H2H phases and dynamics will control when why and how combat goes from one to another phase - much of these dynamics will depend on the Weapon Methods of the units in the battle.
The weapons combat classes define now quite specifically the sorts of weapons the unit carries and uses in each of the 4 phases (including a 5th A2G(Air to Ground) for Air units and a 6th, Detonation, for units that destroy themselves as soon as they reach their objective.) The weapons classes directly control what the unit can and will equip itself with and may be changed out by skill promo options. As the weapon equipments are possessed by the unit, they will define the damage types(Attack Forms) and modifiers for their particular combat phases.
Units will maintain sets of modifiers for each of the Combat Phases independantly and simultaneously and when battle phases change, the unit statistics won't have to change but will switch to the compiled modifiers for that specific phase of battle.
For example:
I have a Rifleman. His Weapon Method is Distance Primary. So he'll stand and fire as long as he can and won't bother to approach unless he's attacking, and even then won't do so as quickly as he can. His Distance weapons is a rifle and the rifle is giving him a Distance Puncture modifier, Distance Accuracy modifier, Distance Combat modifier (strength modifier) and a Distance Damage modifier (Damage modifiers still pending coding). These will be in effect in the battle as long as he's in distance range and he's still got enough ammo for the rifle.
However, he's fighting a unit that is H2H Only and the unit approaches and engages with him. At this point, both units switch to using their H2H modifiers from their primary H2H weapon set. The Rifleman starts using his Rifle Butt promotion and gains the modifiers from that.
Shield promo modifiers become conditional to the unit's weapon methods so as to make them depend on whether they are 'in use' or not.
This method will probably mean even more promo definitions but not more promo buttons and will keep a number of places where there would otherwise be ambiguity from being unworkable.
Multiple weapon systems like dual weapon wielders and vehicles will have allow more than one weapon to fall into the same distance or h2h configuration but some tags like puncture will evaluate the highest among its multiple weapons and apply only the best while others like a damage modifier, will be additive so that additional allowed weapons are desirable for the unit.
Anyhow... this rethink took some time and put me back on the planning a bit but saved a lot of time in the future.
And yes, I'm horrified of the complexity it's going to mean trying to work it all out on the odds mechanism. But I think it can and should be done.
Azurian
The Azurian
Kinda reminds me of an MMO, I think C2C is becoming an offline MMO.
Are you using XML or Python?
Are you using XML or Python?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Mostly programming in the dll and this is application into the structure in xml. Many of the Combat Classes will have OnGameOption and NotOnGameOption tag expressions to shape a number of options into the Combat Mod project as a whole.
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Hydro has informed me you need help with icons and such, let me know what you need and what.
(Make sure to pm me about this, Its hard for me to follow threads, theres alot of them I post on and i'm bad at remembering...sorry)
(Make sure to pm me about this, Its hard for me to follow threads, theres alot of them I post on and i'm bad at remembering...sorry)
Azurian
The Azurian
Along with Sword of Geddon, I can help you with this.
I can also help you create base XML files and you can edit the information in them.
I can also help you create base XML files and you can edit the information in them.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
My next commit will already have all the combat classes listed on my document and once the planning is complete Nimek's new xml tool will be able to automatically insert all the CCs as defined on every unit at once so there's no need for further xml assistance there.
However, as I explained to Swordy in a pm I was hoping we could make the base color of the icons here the same as the category color utilized in the full Combat Class list in my document. We would thus need to start by making sure we have the proper coloration on those bases.
However, as I explained to Swordy in a pm I was hoping we could make the base color of the icons here the same as the category color utilized in the full Combat Class list in my document. We would thus need to start by making sure we have the proper coloration on those bases.
Nimek
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,208
@TB
Can you tweak your G doc a little to corespond to import syntax that i plan?
COlumn name should be the same as tag name you want to import. If you want change nested tag value than you must set subtag after '/' sign. Comments that will be ignored puy in /* */
So subcombat type column that coresponds to this syntax should look like this
SubCombatTypes /
SubCombatType
/* MOTYLITY */
Just as example.
Can you tweak your G doc a little to corespond to import syntax that i plan?
COlumn name should be the same as tag name you want to import. If you want change nested tag value than you must set subtag after '/' sign. Comments that will be ignored puy in /* */
So subcombat type column that coresponds to this syntax should look like this
SubCombatTypes /
SubCombatType
/* MOTYLITY */
Just as example.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Can we add another row and ignore the first for that?
Since I"m not sure I follow you 100% on the syntax, I don't mind if you setup an example on the document on one of the columns. I figure much of it will need to be copied over to a new doc for proper formatting anyhow so that you won't have to reprogram your mechanism to ignore the file paths (there are numerous hidden columns at the moment that indicate the 'edit' file paths) and so that Heroes and unused unit definitions can be done without creating spaces between those sections that might trip up the mechanism.
Since I"m not sure I follow you 100% on the syntax, I don't mind if you setup an example on the document on one of the columns. I figure much of it will need to be copied over to a new doc for proper formatting anyhow so that you won't have to reprogram your mechanism to ignore the file paths (there are numerous hidden columns at the moment that indicate the 'edit' file paths) and so that Heroes and unused unit definitions can be done without creating spaces between those sections that might trip up the mechanism.
DRJ
Hedonist
I don't know if this is the right place to post this but since I am sure you know what to do with the idea (or not do it) I'll lay it out anyway:
When I stationed an Atl-Atl on a horse-pasture in my recent game I thought:
well, if I let them stay there and if my tribe has learned riding before as well, couldn't the pasture, over time, give the Atl-Atls the ability to become riders - lets say after like 10 turns being stationed there?
In short: if we have the tag to upgrade something like a fort to a fortress by units being stationed on it (for a number of turns), shouldn't we also have a tag that upgrades units by being stationed on certain improvements? (maybe receiving a promotion button for this in lower UI) I saw you evaluated your xml and dll skillz anew so I dare to ask!
This tag could also be useful for training miners, for example if they stay a number of turns on a mine-improvement. Or for Stone-Axemen, if they stay on obsedian. Or for slaves that stay on cannabis plantation close to a city with christianity and yoruba in it to become Rastafari-missionaries.
A lot of synergies to be thought of there!
When I stationed an Atl-Atl on a horse-pasture in my recent game I thought:
well, if I let them stay there and if my tribe has learned riding before as well, couldn't the pasture, over time, give the Atl-Atls the ability to become riders - lets say after like 10 turns being stationed there?
In short: if we have the tag to upgrade something like a fort to a fortress by units being stationed on it (for a number of turns), shouldn't we also have a tag that upgrades units by being stationed on certain improvements? (maybe receiving a promotion button for this in lower UI) I saw you evaluated your xml and dll skillz anew so I dare to ask!
This tag could also be useful for training miners, for example if they stay a number of turns on a mine-improvement. Or for Stone-Axemen, if they stay on obsedian. Or for slaves that stay on cannabis plantation close to a city with christianity and yoruba in it to become Rastafari-missionaries.
A lot of synergies to be thought of there!
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I certainly have planned the ability to have skill promotions add Combat Classes that can expand a unit's equipment access. Such a mechanism as you suggest could be done. But I'm not sure it would be entirely wise...
One problem would be that the definition of a unit may begin to blur to the point that it becomes rather confusing to the player who's looking at units in the field with certain visual features but they aren't acting at all as if they have those features. There's going to be a little of that already and I was planning on crafting things so it wouldn't be toooooo terribly muddled. This would break some barriers there.
Example: An Atlatlist that is riding would still LOOK like an Atlatlist that is walking. Furthermore, let's say its a longbowman. A longbow is almost entirely unusable on horseback so we'd have to either invalidate their primary weapon or deny them this effect due to their weapon.
We could theoretically create methods to overcome this with art alteration methods on the unit but I have a feeling that if and when we figure out how to go about this, such adjustments between riding and not are still going to be pretty well out of reach as it's too sweeping a change to animation, positioning etc. I believe the method of having promos adjust the art would be too limited without having a HUGE library of unit arts which would swell the data of the game to download sizes that would make the head spin.
I'm not saying its a bad idea... just perhaps a bit unfeasible and some alternatives should be considered. Perhaps these things could trigger the ability for a unit to upgrade in unusual ways... that might work a bit better.
One problem would be that the definition of a unit may begin to blur to the point that it becomes rather confusing to the player who's looking at units in the field with certain visual features but they aren't acting at all as if they have those features. There's going to be a little of that already and I was planning on crafting things so it wouldn't be toooooo terribly muddled. This would break some barriers there.
Example: An Atlatlist that is riding would still LOOK like an Atlatlist that is walking. Furthermore, let's say its a longbowman. A longbow is almost entirely unusable on horseback so we'd have to either invalidate their primary weapon or deny them this effect due to their weapon.
We could theoretically create methods to overcome this with art alteration methods on the unit but I have a feeling that if and when we figure out how to go about this, such adjustments between riding and not are still going to be pretty well out of reach as it's too sweeping a change to animation, positioning etc. I believe the method of having promos adjust the art would be too limited without having a HUGE library of unit arts which would swell the data of the game to download sizes that would make the head spin.
I'm not saying its a bad idea... just perhaps a bit unfeasible and some alternatives should be considered. Perhaps these things could trigger the ability for a unit to upgrade in unusual ways... that might work a bit better.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
As an aside, I think the Horse Archer was the source for the myth of the centaur. My main point is that Horse Archery (let alone Horse Atlatlry which I don't think ever developed - not that it couldn't have) took more than archers being around horses for a century or so!
Even after we (non-nomadic Europeans) figured out they were humans riding horses hands-free and still firing bows quite effectively, we still couldn't learn the skill. Indeed we still looked on it as almost supernatural. And fitting a javelin to an atlatl hands-free while riding would be somewhat trickier again...!
I would quite like to see Horse Atlatlists in the game, but I think it would require at least a small tech, and could be handled by 'normal' upgrade processes (that is, if archers were allowed to upgrade to mounted units...) Disclaimer: in this I'm assuming that atlatls are not obsolete before horse archery is developed.
(It just occurred to me that Horse Javelineer would be a much easier skill to master...)
Even after we (non-nomadic Europeans) figured out they were humans riding horses hands-free and still firing bows quite effectively, we still couldn't learn the skill. Indeed we still looked on it as almost supernatural. And fitting a javelin to an atlatl hands-free while riding would be somewhat trickier again...!
I would quite like to see Horse Atlatlists in the game, but I think it would require at least a small tech, and could be handled by 'normal' upgrade processes (that is, if archers were allowed to upgrade to mounted units...) Disclaimer: in this I'm assuming that atlatls are not obsolete before horse archery is developed.
(It just occurred to me that Horse Javelineer would be a much easier skill to master...)
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Perhaps Horse AtlAtls and Horse Javelineers could be encompassed by a Stonepunk module.
DRJ
Hedonist
Hehe, yeah I liked to see that!!! Stone(d)punk 
Originally what the Atl-Atls would learn would be to ride on horseback -- to the battle only -- they would still fight on foot, they would be getting mobility before and after but using same old formations during the clashes.
At the end, they receive - as long as horsearchers or stonepunk aren't enabled yet (at that point a "upgrade to" button could be appearing near the "available promotions" UI) -
simply + 1 movement and/or -1 terrain cost
because they are good at riding, maybe good at scouting for the enemy (well trained, fast horses with their squad), carrying supplies (their horses are treated good at marches etc).
If there are horses in a civ, I always imagine the officers of any unit on horse anyway. So the officers of a foot unit living on horse pasture sure would have better horses available than foot unit officers in a town where work horses are more common...
In the long term what I liked to see, when the graphics rescaling should work out the way intended, new formations of 6-9 smaller units would be standard, of which one would be on a horse (or camel or elephant or whatever the player sets the standard to during the game), the officer...
Originally what the Atl-Atls would learn would be to ride on horseback -- to the battle only -- they would still fight on foot, they would be getting mobility before and after but using same old formations during the clashes.
At the end, they receive - as long as horsearchers or stonepunk aren't enabled yet (at that point a "upgrade to" button could be appearing near the "available promotions" UI) -
simply + 1 movement and/or -1 terrain cost
because they are good at riding, maybe good at scouting for the enemy (well trained, fast horses with their squad), carrying supplies (their horses are treated good at marches etc).
If there are horses in a civ, I always imagine the officers of any unit on horse anyway. So the officers of a foot unit living on horse pasture sure would have better horses available than foot unit officers in a town where work horses are more common...
In the long term what I liked to see, when the graphics rescaling should work out the way intended, new formations of 6-9 smaller units would be standard, of which one would be on a horse (or camel or elephant or whatever the player sets the standard to during the game), the officer...
Similar threads
