C2C: Promotions

[sp00n]

Or simply: just give the AI a promoted commander and check if you attack the unit

I would, but how?
The Field Commander doesn't show up as a separate entity in the World Builder (and it doesn't particularly help that the World Build shows all the units just as icons. Is there a mod for the World Builder??). I can choose a Great General and give him promotions, but that still doesn't make him a Field Commander, I still have to click the button which transforms him into one.
Maybe there's some hidden promotion, but I've checked them all in the World Builder, and couldn't identify it.

I've tried to simply create a GG with promotions and experience, but while the computer did select new promotions with the promotions, he didn't actually transform the unit into a Field Commander.
And I even managed to put the game into an endless loop that way. :<

It's best to think of it not so much as units benefitting, as individual fights benefitting. Each fight (between an attacking unit and a defending unit) that is within the control range will receive the benefits if there are any control points left. Any such fight will decrement the control points when it happens.

While this is perfectly fine when considering the consumption of Control Points, it falls short when an attacking unit is not originally within the range of the aura, but the defending (enemy) unit is. The fight itself still happens within the range of the aura, but the attacking unit doesn't benefit from the buffs as it's originating tile wasn't within range.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

While this is perfectly fine when considering the consumption of Control Points, it falls short when an attacking unit is not originally within the range of the aura, but the defending (enemy) unit is. The fight itself still happens within the range of the aura, but the attacking unit doesn't benefit from the buffs as it's originating tile wasn't within range.

Sounds realistic, why should a unit which is out of range get any benefit. They are out of communication with the commander when they start the attack. The fight itself is only in range for game display purposes. It actually occurs somewhere on the two plots containing the attacker and defender.

 

[BlueGenie]

*cough* Set up a Hotseat game to test. Then you can control both attacking and defending sides.

Cheers

 

[strategyonly]

When i added a new promotion to the Sniper (i believe it was Camouflage) it took away the Sneak promotion, that promo is needed for this line, i really dont care to much about the others, but i cant lose the Sneak one, sorry.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Snipers aren't considered criminals are they? I suppose Sneak needs to be added to whatever those Snipers ARE considered (should probably be a Stealthy CC or something along those lines for those guys... not sure what we have them as now...)

 

[sp00n]

Hm. I'm not even able to GIVE any of these promotions to a sniper unit (except Camouflage).

 

[Thunderbrd]

Hm. I'm not even able to GIVE any of these promotions to a sniper unit (except Camouflage).

That would be correct and what I'm saying should probably be changed.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Hm. I'm not even able to GIVE any of these promotions to a sniper unit (except Camouflage).

Ah but does that mean you will not give it to an thief unit because you may upgrade it to a sniper some day?

 

[ls612]

Ah but does that mean you will not give it to an thief unit because you may upgrade it to a sniper some day?

Or for that matter is the upgrade from assassin to sniper worth it if they can't get the same promos? That is why I would like to have that system changed in the Combat mod.

 

[strategyonly]

If the B Elep is in the Tank line, how come i am losing its promotions?

Also shouldn't the Tank Factory, be added to the + category?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Or for that matter is the upgrade from assassin to sniper worth it if they can't get the same promos? That is why I would like to have that system changed in the Combat mod.

The point is that the sniper, being so similar in nature, should have a shared combat class with the assassin and the promos that we are feeling shouldn't have been removed in the transition should be on that shared combat class. That resolves the issue and is the way it was intended to work. There is no reason for it not to be adjusted that way and a lot of reasons to not undo or rework the coding side of it.

This should be seen as a positive rather than a negative. It gives us more control and a capacity to find, via these reports, where our promotion chains have irrational linkages in the first place. I mean, you could be asking right now, "What's the point of having the promotion removed when the Assassin upgrades to the Sniper" OR you could adjust perspective and ask "Why aren't Snipers able to get these promotions that seem to fit them in the first place"???

Haven't you ever been irritated to see a Machine Gunner who can't attack carrying around a City Raider promo from a previous unit class promotion selection? Wouldn't it be nice, now that you've upgraded to the Machine Gunner that can't attack, to be able to reselect that decision now that its worthless to the new form of the unit? That's what this allows.

My point is, it's not that Snipers should be losing Stealth style promos, its that they should've had access to them in the first place. And that's what this 'bug' report is showing us. Not that the system needs to change to adjust for the desire to have less work to do there.

If the B Elep is in the Tank line, how come i am losing its promotions?

Also shouldn't the Tank Factory, be added to the + category?

Again, because although the Elephant is in the Tank line, as in, it can promote to Tanks, it does not share the same combat class(es) as the tanks they can upgrade to. When they become tanks, those promos that elephants can get but tanks can't are lost, but if you selected any promotions that were lost as a result of leveling up your unit and those lost promos weren't 'free' in the first place, you get to reselect them from among the promos that tanks CAN get.

And again... if there are promotions that elephants can get that tanks can't, we should be asking, Should tanks be able to get these promotions then? Is there a good reason they can't? If so, it should be acceptable that they lose those promos. If not, then the promotion prerequisites should be adjusted so that the tank combat classes have access to them.

I've done a lot of work to make prerequiste establishments a far easier affair in the combat mod so as to minimize the impact of these kinds of adjustments.

And all they are catching seems to be the frustrating things I've been noting for years about our promotion prerequisite structures anyhow. There's tons of places I've seen in play where I must shake my head wondering why the new upgraded unit can't select what it was able to before the upgrade. This mechanism is now highlighting those spots for us so we can address them as they come up.

(There's also been a lot of those Machine Guns with City Raider kinds of situations and those don't seem right either.)

Another argument to keep the system as is and continue to adapt our promotion prerequisite structures instead: ONLY the human players have the cleverness necessary to take advantage of knowledge of the unit promotion tree to promote in such a way as to provide promotions for units that would otherwise never have access to those promotions. This mechanism takes that edge over the AI decision making processes out of the equation helping to bring the AI closer to the human player in 'skill'.

 

[ls612]

@Thunderbrd:

But the Sniper and their upgrades aren't really Criminal units. They fill the same ingame role, but aren't the same type of people and soldiers. I'm just asking for the Combat mod to be tweaked so that they don't lose their existing promotions just because they lost a unitcombat along the line, and SO agrees. As far as I can tell that isn't too hard of a code change. Would you rather I did that for you?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Do not change it. If the sniper is losing promotions you don't feel should be lost then the sniper should have access to those.

You didn't counter any of my arguments nor respond to any of the suggestions on how it could be addressed properly. All you said is, "but that's not how I want it". Not a compelling reason given that I've given you a number of reasons for the way its setup.

I could make it optional to have promos be lost for this reason, and was intending to, but this is our trial period where we're supposed to be catching those illogical losses of promotion access and repairing them.

I'm not trying to say that Sniper types should have all the same promotions. I'm trying to say that whatever they shouldn't be able to learn, they shouldn't be able to keep. It's not as if I don't give the unit the ability to select a new promotion in its place! Isn't there a valid argument here to say that some of the promos being lost shouldn't be lost because those units should be able to take those promotions?

 

[ls612]

Do not change it. If the sniper is losing promotions you don't feel should be lost then the sniper should have access to those.

You didn't counter any of my arguments nor respond to any of the suggestions on how it could be addressed properly. All you said is, "but that's not how I want it". Not a compelling reason given that I've given you a number of reasons for the way its setup.

I could make it optional to have promos be lost for this reason, and was intending to, but this is our trial period where we're supposed to be catching those illogical losses of promotion access and repairing them.

I'm not trying to say that Sniper types should have all the same promotions. I'm trying to say that whatever they shouldn't be able to learn, they shouldn't be able to keep. It's not as if I don't give the unit the ability to select a new promotion in its place! Isn't there a valid argument here to say that some of the promos being lost shouldn't be lost because those units should be able to take those promotions?

I said exactly why I wanted it changed (snipers aren't criminals). You've only said that you have 'future plans' for it (which I have no idea about given that you haven't really explained your future plans). And SO also wanted it changed. I don't see what the big deal is here about trying to keep it how it is.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well, primarily, if Snipers are losing promotions they should be able to have, its because they shouldn't be losing access to those promotions.

As for 'plans', I mean, its not even all about that.

Say we give an elephant a promotion ability that relies on the fact that the elephant has a trunk and can grab and toss around its foes as a result. Should that then be kept when the elephant is now a tank?

Why shouldn't a Sniper unit, who's obviously a stealth based and trained unit, be able to keep/select the Shadowstalker promotions? What makes a Criminal more stealthy than a trained military killer?

Why would you want to allow a unit that only defends, like a Machine Gun, to be able to continue to be stuck with a City Raider promotion?

Why would you want to be able to give a unit a promotion that's been deemed 'too strong for that unit type' by simply building a unit that CAN get that promotion, giving that unit the promotions you wanted to be able to give the more advanced unit but couldn't, then upgrading the lesser unit up so that you were able to game the system and get around the designer's determinations about what a unit should be able to have?

Case in point: for most of the time we've been playing CiV4 BtS and any variant, my wife and I would build scadloads of whatever unit type would end up promoting into a machine gun so we could give those units City Defense promotions and therefore build a stockpile of machine gunners that got around the fact that machine gunners couldn't take much in the way of decent promotions (apparently because the initial designers felt they were too strong with those promos, and after a handful machine guns with the right promos ended up holding strong against a hundred attacking units or so from the same era, we could see why.)

Let's say a Mounted unit gets a lancing charge promotion, then gets upgraded to a Helicopter unit. Why, by any stretch of imagination, should a Helicopter unit, at any time, be allowed to have a Lancing Charge?


As for the 'future plans':
The structure of losing promotions as a result of loss of access as a result of loss of combat class that had been giving them access is absolutely critical to the concept of Equipments.

If I have a unit that has taken Flaming Arrows, for example, the Flaming Arrows will be adding the Flame Wielding combat class to the unit that has that equipment. As a result of having the Flame Wielding combat class, that unit will have access to further promotions that are only available to units that wield flame. For example, perhaps the unit would be now able to select, as a skill based promotion: Smoke Out. Smoke out assumes the unit uses flaming weaponry so now, with a bit of new strategic knowledge, they can push enemy units out of their defensive positions more effectively.

So you have, say, a Longbowmen unit that has taken this promotion as a result of the equipment they are wielding giving them access to that promo, then you upgrade the Longbowmen into Arquebusiers (sp?)... The Arq's aren't wielding a flame weapon so they lose the combat class Flame Wielding, thus they lose the Smoke Out promotion that they'd selected as a result of that combat class loss. So that units aren't really penalized for this, they are now able to select a promotion to take Smoke Out's place, something more appropriate for their new unit type.

Now say, instead of an upgrade causing it, the Longbowmen were to have switched from Flaming Arrows to Poison Arrows instead. Again, the combat class Flame Wielding would be lost and any promotions relying on it, and the unit would be able to reselect, perhaps even from a new list of promotions the unit would now have access to as a result of picking up a new combat class from Poison Arrows.




My understanding of SO's position is that its simply frustrating to be losing promotions that it feels like that unit should still be able to keep. And if that's the case, then this means that the unit type is obviously similar enough in nature to make the point that the unit that shouldn't have lost that promotion should've had access to choose that promotion in the first place.

EDIT: The only reason I see this as a 'big deal' is because the system is far more logical the way its currently established. If you could show how it is somehow illogical, I'm listening for your arguments. Obviously, there is enough of a similar unit role in the case in point that what is illogical is that the Sniper can't take those promos in question.

 

[strategyonly]

As for the 'future plans':
The structure of losing promotions as a result of loss of access as a result of loss of combat class that had been giving them access is absolutely critical to the concept of Equipments.

If I have a unit that has taken Flaming Arrows, for example, the Flaming Arrows will be adding the Flame Wielding combat class to the unit that has that equipment. As a result of having the Flame Wielding combat class, that unit will have access to further promotions that are only available to units that wield flame. For example, perhaps the unit would be now able to select, as a skill based promotion: Smoke Out. Smoke out assumes the unit uses flaming weaponry so now, with a bit of new strategic knowledge, they can push enemy units out of their defensive positions more effectively.

My understanding of SO's position is that its simply frustrating to be losing promotions that it feels like that unit should still be able to keep. And if that's the case, then this means that the unit type is obviously similar enough in nature to make the point that the unit that shouldn't have lost that promotion should've had access to choose that promotion in the first place.

OK if THIS is the case for getting the Equipment to work, i can deal with it, i really want the Equipment part to be correctly used and implemented. So IF that means i lose some promotions, then so be it (as long as i can get equipment in cities).

 

[Thunderbrd]

OK if THIS is the case for getting the Equipment to work, i can deal with it, i really want the Equipment part to be correctly used and implemented. So IF that means i lose some promotions, then so be it (as long as i can get equipment in cities).

It's part of the case yes. I don't want you to be losing promotions you shouldn't be losing though... that doesn't make sense. What does make sense is to widen the access to those promotions where it feels like a unit shouldn't have lost one.

With the PromotionLine/SubCombatClass methods, I've made assignment of promotion access a far easier affair. No longer do we have to assign prereqs on a unit by unit/promotion by promotion basis. Now we have the power to apply by category: PromotionLine by PromotionLine/UnitCombatClass by UnitCombatClass. This should all be much easier than it has ever been before to manipulate and improve our promotion access issues.

But yeah, equipment is a big part of it. Otherwise you'll also have scenarios where Helicopters are still wearing their Barding. Heck, we even have those kinds of situations presently (as in - before my changes there) such as poison arrows promotions remaining on Mechanized Infantry units.

Those kinds of situations break 'suspension of belief', a term which is usually used in performing arts but also fits here. I'm of the opinion that whatever is more rational is a better solution.

 

[ls612]

OK if THIS is the case for getting the Equipment to work, i can deal with it, i really want the Equipment part to be correctly used and implemented. So IF that means i lose some promotions, then so be it (as long as i can get equipment in cities).

It could be changed to apply the way it is now to equipment (there is a bEquipment tag), and work the way I suggested for normal promos. There is no reason it has to be strictly one or the other.

 

[Thunderbrd]

ls612, have you even read the reasons I've given?

 

[ls612]

ls612, have you even read the reasons I've given?

Yes I have. You said you want to leave it the way it is so that equipment will function properly. So in almost all of the cases that I can think of that don't involve equipment allowing units to retain promotions that they got earlier seems fine to me