C2C Combat Mod Introduction - Step I (SubCombat Classes)
- Thread starter Thunderbrd
- Start date
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@TB
So now that we have Anteaters, Armadillos, Ground Sloths and Tree Sloths I think we may need to rename the Anteater CC to Xenarthra. However that leaves out the Aardvark. Sadly the Aardvark is in its own taxa group. So we may need to have it have its own Aardvark group. I am kinda torn since its very similar to Anteaters and Armadillos but is unrelated to them.
What do you think?
So now that we have Anteaters, Armadillos, Ground Sloths and Tree Sloths I think we may need to rename the Anteater CC to Xenarthra. However that leaves out the Aardvark. Sadly the Aardvark is in its own taxa group. So we may need to have it have its own Aardvark group. I am kinda torn since its very similar to Anteaters and Armadillos but is unrelated to them.
What do you think?
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Well I am using Pachyderm as a group. It is an obsolete taxa group but it serves my need for a group containing Elephants, Mammoths, Pigs, Tapirs, Rhinos, Hippos and Aardvarks. Mind you it should also include horses but I don't.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Since when has Pachyderm expanded to mean pigs and donkeys and such when it always meant 'elephants and mammoths (and that's pretty much it though I thought Rhinos were a part of this too) and why did they reclassify it? It's like the powers that be in the classification realm are just trying to confuse us as we go about using the language as we were taught it!
So what do they call Rhinos, Elephants and Mammoths now?
Anyhow... I think it might be appropriate to allow for a little scientific inconsistency for the sake of the Aardvark to fall under a category that makes it similar to those other creatures so that specialized hunting promos and such can have more clear categories.
So what do they call Rhinos, Elephants and Mammoths now?
Anyhow... I think it might be appropriate to allow for a little scientific inconsistency for the sake of the Aardvark to fall under a category that makes it similar to those other creatures so that specialized hunting promos and such can have more clear categories.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
If the Platypus can build the Bird myth
sad, I see no reason why the Aardvark can't be in the Anteater CC.
sad, I see no reason why the Aardvark can't be in the Anteater CC.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@TB
The problem is pachyderm is an obsolete taxonomic order ...
Under the proper taxonomy seperate by Family grouping it would be ...
- Elephantidae = Elephants and Mammoths
- Rhinocerotidae = Rhinos
- Hippopotamidae = Hippos
- Equidae = Horse, Zebra, Donkey, Mule, Onager
- Suidae = Pig, Wild Boar, Warthog
- Tapiridae = Tapirs
- Orycteropodidae = Aardvark
The problem is pachyderm is an obsolete taxonomic order ...
Under the proper taxonomy seperate by Family grouping it would be ...
- Elephantidae = Elephants and Mammoths
- Rhinocerotidae = Rhinos
- Hippopotamidae = Hippos
- Equidae = Horse, Zebra, Donkey, Mule, Onager
- Suidae = Pig, Wild Boar, Warthog
- Tapiridae = Tapirs
- Orycteropodidae = Aardvark
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
In the 18th century it meant all those. It was removed as a scientific term but "the people" got hold of it to mean elephants.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Yup. Which is how I thought we were going to use it for the Combat Classes. Meaning that Elephants and Mammoths were "Pachyderms" while other Combat Classes were made for other animals like hippos, rhinos, tapirs and pigs.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
The problem is that you want to use these classes for combat and I want to use them for outcomes, units and buildings.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
Is it possible to have Sub"Combat" Classes that have no effect on combat?
That way each animal could have its subcombat for combat and another for DH.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Combat Classes are just unit categories and have numerous potential uses.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
Yeah so an animal could simultaneously belong to two sub-classes of animal. One of these could impact on combat, size matters, fight or flight etc. The other could be combat-neutral, and could determine what myth and other buildings they can build.
For example, an Aardvark could be an Anteater for combat purposes and an 'honorary pachyderm' for myths etc.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
You could easily develop a UnitCombat category on my planning document called MYTH and label them UNITCOMBAT_ANIMAL_MYTH_PACHYDERM for example and then assign freely to those that deserve them. To keep things nice and organized though, I'd put them in right after the Animal type subcategory and I'd seek to make sure every animal had one and no less selections there but it might be useful to only include it as a Subdued and/or Tamed subcategory (it would only be set up on Subdued and Tamed animals.)
Then you can simply call for the animal's isHasUnitCombat(i) asking for the type you're looking for for whatever py effects you're giving it etc...
I would not be against DH adding a whole new category like this for his own purposes.
Blue Senshi
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 136
I was looking at your CIV4UnitCombatInfos file in version 34, and I see for UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED that you have a "UnitCombatChangeModifier" and a "PursuitVSUnitCombatTypesChange" tag that gives mounted units bonuses against throwing units. Would it be possible to create such a change tag for "TerrainAttacks" and "FeatureAttacks"? I'm thinking this way: the defense bonus of +50 in terrain like Jungle and Forest should really only apply against attacks by ranged units. I don't see why a melee unit should be penalized for attacking into a forest or jungle, since the attacker and defender would be fighting under the same conditions, why should one have an advantage over the other in such terrain? When attacked by ranged units, the defense bonus makes sense because the trees would be used as cover. But the bonus makes no sense against an attacking melee unit. So I was thinking that units with the UNITCOMBAT_MELEE designation could be given an attack bonus against these types of terrain that would offset the inherent defense bonus those terrains give, using the CIV4UnitCombatInfos file.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Would a forest make sense if you are a melee unit and get attacked by range unts?
It makes sense for attacks from melee units since you can supprise them.
It makes sense for attacks from melee units since you can supprise them.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
You can surprise ranged units as well. Entering an enemy tile is seen as attacking in game terms, but it could (and generally does imo where terrain defence bonuses are concerned) also represent "making it impossible for the enemy not to attack you" ie. the ambush scenario.
Blue Senshi
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 136
I'm willing to concede some defense bonus against attacking melee units to represent the possibility of a successful ambush, but I don't think it should be the full +50 defense bonus. IMO that bonus was meant to represent not just hiding, but actual cover that blocks missile/ranged attacks. If it was meant to represent hiding only, why then does Very Tall Grass give only a +15 defense bonus?
In any case, what I'm really asking for here is the ability to make that change (in my own version of the mod) without having to do it unit by unit. If Thunderbd could make it so I could attach such an attack vs terrain bonus (using the CIV4UnitCombatInfos file) to all units that have the UNITCOMBAT_MELEE designation, it would make things a lot easier.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
hmm...
Terrain and Feature Attack Modifier. I could probably work that out. At some point. I need more reasons to prioritorize it though. Not that I don't care to help guys do things like what you want to do but if it had an agreed upon application in the mod it would help. I personally wouldn't want to negate the hill/forest etc... defensive penalties for any unit. There's many reasons for these - footing, an ability to find and take the 'higher ground', chokepoints, ambush spots, cover etc... many of which apply to any kind of combat situation. The land lends itself to being better for staging a defense in because to know the land at all before the battle is to have an upper hand.
Terrain and Feature Attack Modifier. I could probably work that out. At some point. I need more reasons to prioritorize it though. Not that I don't care to help guys do things like what you want to do but if it had an agreed upon application in the mod it would help. I personally wouldn't want to negate the hill/forest etc... defensive penalties for any unit. There's many reasons for these - footing, an ability to find and take the 'higher ground', chokepoints, ambush spots, cover etc... many of which apply to any kind of combat situation. The land lends itself to being better for staging a defense in because to know the land at all before the battle is to have an upper hand.
Blue Senshi
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 136
OK. I wasn't including Hills BTW. That's somethiing I wouldn't change. Footing and higher ground (and most likely chokepoints too) wouldn't apply to level ground attacks into Forest/Jungle, only ambush and cover would be relevant IMO, and I've already stated my case about those. I would want to do Terrain/Feature defense modifiers too, as I've stated in another post (not in this thread) that I think mounted and wheeled units should be penalized for entering certain terrain.
Similar threads
