We have had a whole lot of discussion amongst ourselves on this issue, and the bottom line is that this isn't going to be added except as an option. We are contemplating a way to allow two sets of unit XML (one for combat and one without), and loading them dynamically depending on user choices, but that is still very much up in the air.
C2C Combat Mod Introduction - Step III (The New Face of Combat)
- Thread starter Thunderbrd
- Start date
We have had a whole lot of discussion amongst ourselves on this issue, and the bottom line is that this isn't going to be added except as an option. We are contemplating a way to allow two sets of unit XML (one for combat and one without), and loading them dynamically depending on user choices, but that is still very much up in the air.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I wasn't talking about underwater cities at all as I'd prefer to leave those for a multi-map too!
I've actually figured this out... It works quite well and does not enhance processing time at all (but could add to load time if a lot of new option content is used so it's gotta be used somewhat sparingly if possible.) I'll be sharing how it all works with y'all soon as I've managed to generate the utility for use with a trial run with optional trait sets
This will be rather useful for your goals too ls!I've actually figured this out... It works quite well and does not enhance processing time at all (but could add to load time if a lot of new option content is used so it's gotta be used somewhat sparingly if possible.) I'll be sharing how it all works with y'all soon as I've managed to generate the utility for use with a trial run with optional trait sets
Cool, please PM me with the details. Also, speaking of traits I'm almost done with the positive ones, so pretty soon we can try that out with mine and yours as options using this method.
WilliamOfOrange
Emperor
Could the system proposed in the OP be used to bring in emotional variants as well. For example, a 'vain' or 'arrogant' unit has its morale lowered and consequentially it's fighting potency lowered when damaged or when losing to a weaker unit?
A unit like a Beserker with a chaotic approach to battle could intimidate an opponent.
A unit like a Beserker with a chaotic approach to battle could intimidate an opponent.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
There's absolutely some plans forming for emotional based statuses (handled by auto-assigned and auto-removed promos). And the idea of Berzerking like that is exactly what initially inspired the tag that changes strength by round during combat.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
I am bumping these because I really want to see TB see his visions realized. I think these are really cool ideas and want them as well.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Animals come first on all of this and some of these effects probably do still need to be optionalized out so that players can determine how complex they wish their warfare to be. Some effects like the criticals will be outside the realm of what they want and I still aim to please as much as we can. SOME of this will need additional AI but I want to get the other things done first so I have some time to confer with Koshling on his plans for things in the AI and where all of this fits in with those plans. So we're still going to have to have some patience on these matters.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Ok, I've spent the last two weeks generating this document, a full analysis of All units for withdrawal adjustments, early withdrawal applications, and pursuit applications.
The document is HERE!
Please, all who are willing to assist with xml and the mod in general, please give this a quick review in light of what's been said about these unit abilities here. I could also use some help in implementing these changes.
However, there's an item of discussion in this aside from just making sure everything looks rational. As previous discussions in this thread have made clear, not all would feel all this is necessary to include in their game. Thus, I should probably make a game option that can isolate this out. I can easily remove the early withdrawal and pursuit effects on that option and I'm thinking by swapping over to a Diminishing Return method on extremely high withdrawal values, we'd be set for that. So I don't think THESE adjustments would require any replacement options, just some tweaking of how withdrawal tallies up and disabling those two abilities when the game option isn't on.
I can start working on that as the 'next step' as we start to implement these values onto our units.
Also planned:
Repurpose the Flanking Promotion line so that it's only accessed by Fast CC Units.
Create a half-developing withdrawal promo line that's accessed by those that are NOT Slow.
Create a Pursuit set similar to the above.
I've also had some other promo interaction concepts here.
Additionally... I'm not sure if we have Withdrawal or Pursuit Adjustments on a given Terrains/Features but I'm thinking that might be rather interesting. It strikes me that some creatures like Deer or Bear might be better off performing these on a forested hill. Camels may be better at getting away in the desert etc...
So that might be a good supplementary tag set. We DO have Withdrawal and Pursuit vs Combat Class modifiers, to which there are some suggestions in that document (but I mostly plan those once CCs can give universal modifiers to all units of that cc.) But if anyone has any other ideas on that sort of thing, I'd be interested to hear it.
Anyhow, its my firm opinion that implementing these changes will greatly enhance the game experience and balance out some out of balance factors in play right now. So I'm calling all to give it a thorough looksie and inviting help from any who may be able to assist me over the next few weeks to implement these adjustments.
The document is HERE!
Please, all who are willing to assist with xml and the mod in general, please give this a quick review in light of what's been said about these unit abilities here. I could also use some help in implementing these changes.
However, there's an item of discussion in this aside from just making sure everything looks rational. As previous discussions in this thread have made clear, not all would feel all this is necessary to include in their game. Thus, I should probably make a game option that can isolate this out. I can easily remove the early withdrawal and pursuit effects on that option and I'm thinking by swapping over to a Diminishing Return method on extremely high withdrawal values, we'd be set for that. So I don't think THESE adjustments would require any replacement options, just some tweaking of how withdrawal tallies up and disabling those two abilities when the game option isn't on.
I can start working on that as the 'next step' as we start to implement these values onto our units.
Also planned:
Repurpose the Flanking Promotion line so that it's only accessed by Fast CC Units.
Create a half-developing withdrawal promo line that's accessed by those that are NOT Slow.
Create a Pursuit set similar to the above.
I've also had some other promo interaction concepts here.
Additionally... I'm not sure if we have Withdrawal or Pursuit Adjustments on a given Terrains/Features but I'm thinking that might be rather interesting. It strikes me that some creatures like Deer or Bear might be better off performing these on a forested hill. Camels may be better at getting away in the desert etc...
So that might be a good supplementary tag set. We DO have Withdrawal and Pursuit vs Combat Class modifiers, to which there are some suggestions in that document (but I mostly plan those once CCs can give universal modifiers to all units of that cc.) But if anyone has any other ideas on that sort of thing, I'd be interested to hear it.
Anyhow, its my firm opinion that implementing these changes will greatly enhance the game experience and balance out some out of balance factors in play right now. So I'm calling all to give it a thorough looksie and inviting help from any who may be able to assist me over the next few weeks to implement these adjustments.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
How did you decide wheater a unit is fast or not? For example your Dromon is fast. But a Fusion Crusier, which is obiously faster than a Dromon, is not.
Also, why is a Cobra fast but a normal Human is not? While Cobras can attack with stunning speed, this is only limited to a distance of approx 1/3 their body lenght. A Cobra is neither faster than a human regarding the max speed, nor the stamina. And bears are in generall faster than a Human and could easily outrun them. You might want to talk to Hydro about the animals.
Also, why is a Cobra fast but a normal Human is not? While Cobras can attack with stunning speed, this is only limited to a distance of approx 1/3 their body lenght. A Cobra is neither faster than a human regarding the max speed, nor the stamina. And bears are in generall faster than a Human and could easily outrun them. You might want to talk to Hydro about the animals.
DRJ
Hedonist
It's true, for a cobra the "first strike" ability would represent its speed and for a persistance hunter his "stamina" would represent his "speed" the best (not that the hunter doesn't have a first strike ability and the cobra no stamina, they also should both have numbers in those categories).
So what if we had like three speed categories being merged into an overall speed value? Could be like "first strike" (quick reflexes, short distance), "sprint" (high mph over medium distance) and "stamina" (can it sweat and/or hold reserves [here a camel comes in mind, or a human that has bottles containing water with him])?
The general speed would then, perhaps act a bit as a stone paper scissors system.
Interestingly, also the speed ability of the human units could be simulated advancing at the tech tree, for example, as I already said the introduction of water bottles (stamina), "shoes" (sprint and stamina especially in colder regions, maybe lowering also the terrain damage per turn), "sports" for sprint and stamina (e-sports could train first strike abilitys lol) or and so on.
I like the idea to train the skills of your troops on much more subtle levels, not only when fighting.
So what if we had like three speed categories being merged into an overall speed value? Could be like "first strike" (quick reflexes, short distance), "sprint" (high mph over medium distance) and "stamina" (can it sweat and/or hold reserves [here a camel comes in mind, or a human that has bottles containing water with him])?
The general speed would then, perhaps act a bit as a stone paper scissors system.
Interestingly, also the speed ability of the human units could be simulated advancing at the tech tree, for example, as I already said the introduction of water bottles (stamina), "shoes" (sprint and stamina especially in colder regions, maybe lowering also the terrain damage per turn), "sports" for sprint and stamina (e-sports could train first strike abilitys lol) or and so on.
I like the idea to train the skills of your troops on much more subtle levels, not only when fighting.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
keep in mind then that a Humvee would have both: Speed and Stamina. And a Motorcycle could also have Firststrikes.
Is it already implented or would it be posisble if units had not these 3 categories (fast, medium, slow) but rather a value? And if Unit A's Speed is 6 and Unit B's speed 5, then A could escape from B.
Is it already implented or would it be posisble if units had not these 3 categories (fast, medium, slow) but rather a value? And if Unit A's Speed is 6 and Unit B's speed 5, then A could escape from B.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I had considered these points a lot during this design process and had to ask myself on what basis to establish 'fast' as a combat class.
It's important to understand that 'fast' or 'slow' as combat classes is mostly a matter of giving or denying more or less capable promotion lines for withdrawal and pursuit. That's pretty much it.
Other representatives of speed are the movement value of the unit, and the base withdrawal and pursuit values, to which I think you'll see that yes, a bear can easily outrun a human (but will almost always be doing so when chasing that human down as bears are not known to be timid when injured.)
Thus the bear line has a rather good Pursuit value. However, the bear is not a 'fast' unit because it lacks some agility and reaction speed and is a little numb of mind when it does enter into a chase so could be out-strategized by a clever or skilled withdrawing opponent. Thus 'Fast' indicates a mental and physical 'preparedness' to get a fleeing enemy AND to flee if needbe. It indicates reflexes and an ability to convert practice into very valuable improvement to these abilities. A bear CAN chase down prey but is less likely to be well practiced at pursuit as it does so rarely to hunt and commonly only as a 're' action to a hostile situation which doesn't happen that often because most creatures in the wild are going to be careful not to cross a bear.
A Nuclear Cruiser is indeed a faster ship than a Dromon. However, a Nuclear Cruiser is considered to be a little less maneuverable. It's crew is trained less for speed than it is for battle. It could be very good in an outright chase (its base pursuit would keep the dromon from having a chance unless the dromon was VERY well trained and geared for withdrawal which could mean the dromon is good at finding places where the nuclear cruiser couldn't so easily pass as the dromon) but it's role is not as specialized here as destroyers are. Their pursuit is primarily a matter of getting a slightly faster chasing ship to come up first in the stack if Destroyers are used in hit and run attacks making them a Destroyer deterrent.
In fact, if you notice, the naval units may begin to take on a bit more sensical game balance here. Destroyers are rigged to be best do defend against and attack Subs, but can also be used for hit and run to be able to enter combat with battleships and at least survive the battle, thus can 'swarm kill' battleships. Destroyers (vs Subs++, vs Battleships+) also have interception.
Subs are rigged to be best to attack less maneuverable and thus vulnerable to hit and run Battleships and can almost always survive such a battle enough for other subs to finish the job. They are also quite capable of hitting then getting out of fights with the somewhat sluggish to react cruisers but cruisers could get a bit more skin in the game than a battleship due to some natural but minimally improvable pursuit values so they aren't AS vulnerable as battleships. Subs(vs Battleships ++, vs Cruisers +) Subs are also capable of entering enemy territory unseen and some can carry missiles.
Battleships are very powerful and can devastate a Cruiser as Cruisers are somewhat weaker and cannot attempt escape. They are much stronger than Destroyers and will outmuscle the destroyer in all cases but destroyers can often get away from the fight. This doesn't bother the battleship much because it's doing collateral with its attack usually so when it gets the opportunity to attack its the King of the sea. Without help though, it can't even see the sub to attack it. Battleships (vs Cruisers ++, vs Destroyers +) Battleships are also the best at tearing down city defenses.
Cruisers can chase down Destroyers and are stronger than Destroyers so there's little a Destroyer can do to survive them without developing a lot more withdrawal skill. Cruisers also are good at reacting to the battle with a sub while the sub is still present and can give some chase to the sub but usually the sub can still get away and the cruiser doesn't usually have the ability to see it so as to find it after the battle in a one on one fight in the open ocean. Therefore, Cruisers (vs Destroyer ++, vs Subs +). Cruisers can also carry a hefty payload of missiles in most cases.
Thus on this little circle, Destroyers and Subs are Fast units that rely primarily upon speed and maneuverability to come out on top. Cruisers and Battleships are not, even though the Cruiser is good at moving at good speed so is quite capable of giving a straight chase but can be outmaneuvered by a skilled captain in a more agile vessel.
The Cruiser is capable of a good clean charge but the faster it goes, the less capable of turning it becomes. Thus why its 'combat class' is not 'fast'. A dromon can turn on a dime in comparison to a Cruiser, which could just mean its ability to survive such a chase...
Along this line of thinking, the Cobra is Fast, but that's not due to its ability to strike quickly - it's Fast because venemous creatures tend to want to strike one or two times then retreat to let their venom do its work. So if a Cobra strikes a person, they are pretty much going to thereafter turn around and hightail it. The Cobra might not be a terribly fast snake in comparison to some but it's very clever at keeping to places where it can use concealment to mask the trajectory of its retreat. Cobras don't have to go too far off to be unseen and like most venomous serpents, is a master of sleight of body and can appear to vanish even to an alert eye and finds cracks and pits in the earth to quickly slither into. It doesn't really pursue though... not in its nature as it typically doesn't have to. The poison does its work pretty quickly usually and if the venom of a Cobra can't take something down its probably not a valid food source for the snake and would benefit the serpent to simply enable it to get away from such a big threat. The way the cobra retreats is skilled and such a serpent could develop that skill even more over the course of its life in the wild.
Stamina has been a part of this discussion but it's effects will be coming in the form of another project on the near horizon so it shouldn't be taken into much consideration here aside from being an impression based factor on base withdrawal ability.
A full list of the combat class plans so far (and 'Speed' is one of the categories that has been plotted out now) is available here.
It's important to understand that 'fast' or 'slow' as combat classes is mostly a matter of giving or denying more or less capable promotion lines for withdrawal and pursuit. That's pretty much it.
Other representatives of speed are the movement value of the unit, and the base withdrawal and pursuit values, to which I think you'll see that yes, a bear can easily outrun a human (but will almost always be doing so when chasing that human down as bears are not known to be timid when injured.)
Thus the bear line has a rather good Pursuit value. However, the bear is not a 'fast' unit because it lacks some agility and reaction speed and is a little numb of mind when it does enter into a chase so could be out-strategized by a clever or skilled withdrawing opponent. Thus 'Fast' indicates a mental and physical 'preparedness' to get a fleeing enemy AND to flee if needbe. It indicates reflexes and an ability to convert practice into very valuable improvement to these abilities. A bear CAN chase down prey but is less likely to be well practiced at pursuit as it does so rarely to hunt and commonly only as a 're' action to a hostile situation which doesn't happen that often because most creatures in the wild are going to be careful not to cross a bear.
A Nuclear Cruiser is indeed a faster ship than a Dromon. However, a Nuclear Cruiser is considered to be a little less maneuverable. It's crew is trained less for speed than it is for battle. It could be very good in an outright chase (its base pursuit would keep the dromon from having a chance unless the dromon was VERY well trained and geared for withdrawal which could mean the dromon is good at finding places where the nuclear cruiser couldn't so easily pass as the dromon) but it's role is not as specialized here as destroyers are. Their pursuit is primarily a matter of getting a slightly faster chasing ship to come up first in the stack if Destroyers are used in hit and run attacks making them a Destroyer deterrent.
In fact, if you notice, the naval units may begin to take on a bit more sensical game balance here. Destroyers are rigged to be best do defend against and attack Subs, but can also be used for hit and run to be able to enter combat with battleships and at least survive the battle, thus can 'swarm kill' battleships. Destroyers (vs Subs++, vs Battleships+) also have interception.
Subs are rigged to be best to attack less maneuverable and thus vulnerable to hit and run Battleships and can almost always survive such a battle enough for other subs to finish the job. They are also quite capable of hitting then getting out of fights with the somewhat sluggish to react cruisers but cruisers could get a bit more skin in the game than a battleship due to some natural but minimally improvable pursuit values so they aren't AS vulnerable as battleships. Subs(vs Battleships ++, vs Cruisers +) Subs are also capable of entering enemy territory unseen and some can carry missiles.
Battleships are very powerful and can devastate a Cruiser as Cruisers are somewhat weaker and cannot attempt escape. They are much stronger than Destroyers and will outmuscle the destroyer in all cases but destroyers can often get away from the fight. This doesn't bother the battleship much because it's doing collateral with its attack usually so when it gets the opportunity to attack its the King of the sea. Without help though, it can't even see the sub to attack it. Battleships (vs Cruisers ++, vs Destroyers +) Battleships are also the best at tearing down city defenses.
Cruisers can chase down Destroyers and are stronger than Destroyers so there's little a Destroyer can do to survive them without developing a lot more withdrawal skill. Cruisers also are good at reacting to the battle with a sub while the sub is still present and can give some chase to the sub but usually the sub can still get away and the cruiser doesn't usually have the ability to see it so as to find it after the battle in a one on one fight in the open ocean. Therefore, Cruisers (vs Destroyer ++, vs Subs +). Cruisers can also carry a hefty payload of missiles in most cases.
Thus on this little circle, Destroyers and Subs are Fast units that rely primarily upon speed and maneuverability to come out on top. Cruisers and Battleships are not, even though the Cruiser is good at moving at good speed so is quite capable of giving a straight chase but can be outmaneuvered by a skilled captain in a more agile vessel.
The Cruiser is capable of a good clean charge but the faster it goes, the less capable of turning it becomes. Thus why its 'combat class' is not 'fast'. A dromon can turn on a dime in comparison to a Cruiser, which could just mean its ability to survive such a chase...
Along this line of thinking, the Cobra is Fast, but that's not due to its ability to strike quickly - it's Fast because venemous creatures tend to want to strike one or two times then retreat to let their venom do its work. So if a Cobra strikes a person, they are pretty much going to thereafter turn around and hightail it. The Cobra might not be a terribly fast snake in comparison to some but it's very clever at keeping to places where it can use concealment to mask the trajectory of its retreat. Cobras don't have to go too far off to be unseen and like most venomous serpents, is a master of sleight of body and can appear to vanish even to an alert eye and finds cracks and pits in the earth to quickly slither into. It doesn't really pursue though... not in its nature as it typically doesn't have to. The poison does its work pretty quickly usually and if the venom of a Cobra can't take something down its probably not a valid food source for the snake and would benefit the serpent to simply enable it to get away from such a big threat. The way the cobra retreats is skilled and such a serpent could develop that skill even more over the course of its life in the wild.
Stamina has been a part of this discussion but it's effects will be coming in the form of another project on the near horizon so it shouldn't be taken into much consideration here aside from being an impression based factor on base withdrawal ability.
A full list of the combat class plans so far (and 'Speed' is one of the categories that has been plotted out now) is available here.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Most everything looks good to me. Plus I trust your judgement. And even if something is unbalanced I am sure we will get feedback from the players saying so. This should end up being a self righting process.
Sounds great! I can't wait to see them in action.
I like the idea of special terrain/feature withdraws. I approve.
Totally! As you said before all other areas of C2C have been improved, yet we were still using basic vanilla civ combat. The whole Combat Mod is a breath of fresh air. Especially to warmonger players who like to have a bit more tactics in their game-play.
In short both "builders" and "warmongers" should have a wide range of content with deeper game-play.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Thanks H!
@DH: A lot of the proposals involve changes to animals and most of them are in your modules so do I have a green light from you as well?
@SO: You may want to look this over too since some changes planned involve your stealth units. Just wanna make sure I also have your approval here.
@DH: A lot of the proposals involve changes to animals and most of them are in your modules so do I have a green light from you as well?
@SO: You may want to look this over too since some changes planned involve your stealth units. Just wanna make sure I also have your approval here.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
I am just making some changes to the Bear and Deer units but after that I will be leaving all the animal units alone so you can do your thing. The only problem with some of the animal combat classes I have is that they assume a knowledge of Biology which was not around pre eighteenth century; and is in fact is either useless or just plain before then. Just like the person who complained that the Ratel should not make the Myth of a Weasel because it is not of that type whereas the ancients considered them to be!
Bottom line - go ahead after I update the SVN later this morning.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
I can't see the reason why we'd need those complex and detailed animal classifications at all. Sure, seperating Dog, Horse, Snake, Bird etc is usefull but I think that should be enough.
DRJ
Hedonist
It's never enough - the more factors are in the game the more fun it is.
"Bigger is better". The more accurate situations are simulated the more "alive" it feels to play it.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I do understand your concern there and although its not the only reason for the project I have a second means of categorization planned for all game objects that will be very useful for you to overcome your concern. I'd prefer to represent the creatures with scientific accuracy as a primary categorization mechanism then provide you with a second way to categorize them in any groupings you feel necessary that would work to mold their categories in the ways you need them to be molded. Hopefully this compromise will be every bit as functional for ya. If its not... we'll make it be.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
I think you have it backwards. Ratels are a type of weasel. Its also known as the Honey Badger. Badgers, Wolverines, Weasels, Ferrets, Otters, Minks, Skunks, etc are all part of the Weasel Family. So yes Myth of the Weasel makes sense from a genetic/taxonomical perspective.
I think it was the Tapir that made no genetic/taxonomical sense to make Myth of the Elephant or Myth of the Boar since its more closely related to Rhinos.
Similar threads
