C2C: Promotions

[Thunderbrd]

It's not so that just equipments can work properly, its so that skill promotions based on temporary unitcombat assignments can work properly, or rather properly not work when the unitcombat is removed. Actually, even that is a mis-statement considering that what I mean is that the unit should be able to lose no longer meaningful promos and reselect new ones as the unit upgrades into new forms.

Without this system of promotions being lost when the unit would no longer qualify to select them, we already have a lot of illogical inconsistencies as it is. Do you not find that annoying in and of itself, equipment issues aside? You're not irritated when you end up with promotions that may have once had purpose, but are now meaningless on newly upgraded units?

 

[strategyonly]

Actually, even that is a misstatement considering that what I mean is that the unit should be able to lose no longer meaningful promos and reselect new ones as the unit upgrades into new forms.

Well thats another thing i am confused about, you and when you lose the promotion, it says "you may reselect new ones" which in its present state, you canNOT?? Well at least i have never been able to get any different ones?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Ok... now THAT would be a bug then. I had not been informed that part of the process was not functional. I'll take a look and see what I can do with that.

I was going to allow even freely given promos that are removed to be retrainable but Koshling pointed out some potential problem spots with that. However, if its sending that message then it should be triggering the unit for a retraining selection since it should be a different message if a 'free' promotion has been removed that does not indicate the retraining selection has been triggered.

Koshling re-engineered that portion somewhat so I was trusting it was all working as planned still but perhaps it is needing some debugging at this point. I'll go look through that segment right now actually.

Thanks for letting me know that's an issue!

EDITS:
@ls612: Also... setting the system to only filter out replacements on equipments wouldn't work since its the skill based promos that a unit has access to thanks to having those equipments that would need to be retrained when equipments change on the unit.



OK, did some research into the code and there's one possible scenario I can see that may cause the unit to be unable to retrain despite having lost a promotion it should be able to retrain.

If you're not playing on the Infinite XP option, you may have updated your unit and lost a LOT of XP (backed down to 25exp after upgrade.)

I had originally intended to track the retrains available and the spending of those available retrains on each selection. Koshling preferred that we went with tracking the retrains by reducing the unit level so that the amount of experience the unit had then automatically qualified it for selecting another promotion. This would be perfectly fine except that when you aren't playing Infinite XP you lose your qualifying experience for the expected ensuing levelup and this would happen pretty commonly on unit upgrades. The filter that decides which message you get (the one that says you can retrain vs the one that says you simply lost the promotion without a retrain possible notification) does not realize your unit has lost all that experience so it ends up being kinda problematic to run it this way. (I'd realized that when setting this up but had forgotten that potential problem when Koshling proposed to change the mechanism so I agreed to have it changed without bringing up the problem this represents.)

I have two options then. I can (and I feel this is the right solution) go back to tracking retrains and their spending and removing the coding that reduces the unit's level entirely... OR I can simply change the message that comes up in such situations so that those who are playing without Unlimited XP must simply suffer the occasional loss of a promotion that they would've otherwise been able to train. The only reason I can see the second option as potentially desirable surrounds the idea that those playing without Infinite XP would prefer more challenged units in the first place.

But since SO here is complaining about the inability to retrain when he loses these promotions, and apparently must be playing without Unlimited XP, perhaps there is a common middle ground opinion for players out there that would prefer to be able to retrain when they lose promos despite also preferring to lose tons of XP when they upgrade.



I've considered a possible solution to our problem ls612, but I have a feeling your primary objection to the system structure as is has little to do with how the game should rationally function so I doubt you will find this sufficient. However, what I could do is give a boolean tag to promotions that allows you to establish certain promotions as being non-obsoletable - making it so that those selected promotions would never be lost due to upgrades, changes in combat class, changes in equipment, and even technology obsoletions. I can somewhat understand why you would see some situations where a unit should be able to keep a promotion that it cannot select upon leveling up. I still don't feel its the right way to go about it, but I'm not wanting to keep fighting over it and such a solution would resolve the argument you've presented for asking for units to be able to maintain promotions they earned that have since been obsoleted by an upgrade.

 

[BlueGenie]

I think TBrd's setup and proposal is great. I agree that some units should not be able to keep some promotions after being upgraded to a completely different unit class.
One of the main reasons behind that is that it puts the AI at an unfair disadvantage, or in MP games ANY player not aware of how to use these loopholes to gain promotions that would otherwise be inaccessible by said new unit.
So removing the promotions that should not be accessible removes a loophole for the players that puts the AI more on par with players.

On another note there does seem to be another loophole/bug with promotions and Dynamic XP on with Withdrawal chance.
Train a Horseman, get it to have +3 promotions on creation used on withdrawal chance promotion Flankingx3
Create a Noble, set to lead the Horseman and chose the promotion Tactician.
This gives 95% Withdrawal chance.
Enter a fight you have no chance of winning but gives you the 95% to withdraw.
On a successful withdraw the unit gains a massive amount of XP. Massive.

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

hmm... looks like a review of the experience point award system should be employed to sort that out. I'll add that to the list. ... wait... that's with Dynamic XP on? Ok... good to know at least. That will help to identify where that 'problem' lies.

When we get Pursuit values up and running in play, whether it be by option or otherwise, such high withdrawal chances will have a counteractive strategy that can be employed against them and no limit will exist on withdrawal chance as a result of the expectation that defenses must take that into account to counter such high withdrawal units. So it won't be as much of an issue at that point... but I can see what you mean about how one can game the system with that much xp being awarded for such an easy withdrawal scenario despite the battle itself being nearly impossible to win.

And THANK YOU for posting recognition of one of the points I've been trying to make here! I think what I say often gets lost in everything else I have to say... lol.

 

[charlesb96]

How do I create a new button for some promotion ideas I have? I have the button maker for civ 4, but that just gives the background. How do I make the foreground, IE, that yellow part?

 

[strategyonly]

Can someone please change one or the other icons for these promotions, thx (see attached) Both have the same icons currently

 

[ls612]

@Thunderbrd:

I think that this is one of the things some of us were concerned about with the Combat Mod. You have changed so many systems that there are all sorts of new unexpected things that happen with existing content. And now you say that we just have to work around those limitations that are self-imposed. And when we suggest that some small aspect of the Combat Mod be changed you immediately become defensive and refuse to really consider it.

 

[Thunderbrd]

As for unexpected, I explained how this worked when the code went in place and its equally unexpected that my explanation was not understood nor considered at the time.

I've now, from a number of angles, explained why it works AND why its more rational. I am not against 'considering' how the system should be reworked or adjusted. But you refuse to admit that the way it is established simply makes more sense and helps us find where the structure we currently have without these 'rule' adjustments does not make much sense now.

You have not made any points that counter the points I have made for the system to stay as is so why would I be considering changing it? I'm open for the debate but you aren't debating here... you're ignoring the points I'm making.

I'm not inclined to want to change things just because someone says they don't like something... you could say you don't like elephants being in the game. Does that mean you can accuse those who would refuse to take them out as being unwilling to listen? Elephants make sense being in the game since they were a part of historical warfare. Since the opinion, unbacked by any logic, to remove them is against what is a rational choice, why would a designer then turn around and remove elephants to suit the one unsubstantiated opinion?

I have, in fact, changed a lot of things about the combat mod structure thanks to feedback received. I've done so because the feedback made sense and it was shown, or was apparent, how it would be a better solution to change it.

But you've given me no good reasons to change this part of the structure. In fact, the reasons you've given were accounted for and an alternative method for resolving them was presented, to which I've received no comment on. And I've given you about 10 reasons for the structure to stay as is. You've breezed over those arguments with "I don't see any problems with those issues."

Sorry, but I do. And simply saying you don't gives me no cause to change my mind. It does not mean I'm not considering what you have to say. You simply haven't said anything compelling yet.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Can someone please change one or the other icons for these promotions, thx (see attached) Both have the same icons currently

I'm happy to generate a new icon for the Chemical warfare one. I've noticed those before and taken note to address them eventually. I'll try to get it done next weekend.

 

[ls612]

I think this gets back to the core disagreement between you and myself. You want more realism, even to the point of being boring and upsetting, whereas I want better gameplay and more fun, because this is a game. It isn't fun to have your units lose promotions for no immediately obvious reason, and it doesn't improve gameplay. It does however make things more complex.

That is my compelling reason for wanting that specifically changed, as well as the source of our conflicts generally I think.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I agree that its no fun to lose promotions that don't seem like there's a good reason for it. Thus, we should use these reports to adjust our promotion access prerequisites.

As for 'no immediately obvious reason' I can understand that point and would be very willing to adjust the message system to also express why the unit has lost a promotion. See... THAT makes sense to me.

As for more complex, the system is already complex and in that complexity we're losing sight of which units should have access to which promotions very easily. There's tons of inconsistencies that exist in that arena that should not exist. These promo losses tell us where those inconsistencies are and we have tools to address that. In a sense, the structure as is helps us to debug problems that exist with or without it.

I'm not seeking to enforce a realism that impedes good fun gameplay... quite the opposite in fact. But a major complaint I've felt every time I've played C2C has been the illogical manner in which promo access changes from one unit to the next - waaaaay too often do units lose the ability to select a promotion they could've selected before being upgraded where it simply doesn't make sense that the unit should no longer be able to select those promotions. And if it makes sense to restrict those promotions from access due to some kind of game balance issue, then it makes equal sense to remove those promotions that already exist on the unit.

This mechanism is an aide in our development rather than a hindrance.

 

[charlesb96]

I would vote against losing promotions as well. I really like the Rhino Rider, because it is considered a Melee unit, but it then upgrades to a Cavalry unit. I would not like to lose the promotions that it received as a Melee unit, that is what I gave them to it for, to have them when it became a Cavalry unit.

What I would like to see is the ability to turn in some promotions for different ones. Once you reach guns, Shock and Cover do not apply any more. I would like to turn them into Pinch. IRL it would just be a matter of retraining.

Also, some buildings give their promotions (eg. bamboo armor) to a unit that just stops in the city. However I have found that it gives that promotion to EVERY unit that stops in the city. One of my hunters was out and went thru a foreign city, and came out with a brand new set of Bamboo Armor, thank you very much Mr. Montezuma.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Its for players that prefer to be able to game the system like that that I would make it an option. Doing so is actually an issue on a fairly close agenda plate so it wouldn't be too long before that gets established. I simply have to determine what kind of option and do a bit of research on the in-game option selections and consider whether it should be toggleable in game or fixed as a standard game option - the only problem there is that there are other options that need to harmonize with this one and wouldn't work properly without it being on so there may be some additional options that would have to override the option to turn off the promotion obsoletions. Anyhow, it's coming up on the agenda almost immediately. Particularly after this conversation!

Nevertheless, the argument has just been made all the stronger that the system is terribly gameable without this mechanism, and for that matter, why on earth is the Rhino Rider not a Riding unit in the first place??? (which goes along the lines of what I mean about us getting lost in our own pre-existing complexity and how this system points out where our structures are already irrational!)

The problem there is that the AI cannot be taught to take advantage of those kinds of loopholes so its a distinct advantage for the player that gives us more cause to have to put in more AI handicaps that we are trying to avoid. It'd be nicer if the AI can simply play under all the same rules as the human player and still be a challenge!

EDIT: Responding to the additional points you made since I posted.

Retraining on purpose is exactly why I needed to learn the selection popup mechanism which I just did in application to the Developing Leader option. So I'm actually not far from having that capability that would be provided by some buildings in a city (opens up the ability to do so by combat class.)

Interesting note on the fact that its not filtering to make sure the units are of the same team as the city. Thanks for pointing that out - another bug to address then and likely just an oversight in the design.

EDIT (AGAIN): Out of curiosity, which promos do you put on your Rhino Rider that you can't keep as Cavalry? That question of course leads to, why, exactly, does the Cavalry not have access to those promotions? If they seem reasonable for the Cavlary unit too then why aren't they accessible for Cavalry?

 

[strategyonly]

(which goes along the lines of what I mean about us getting lost in our own pre-existing complexity and how this system points out where our structures are already irrational!)

Here, here.

 

[charlesb96]

EDIT (AGAIN): Out of curiosity, which promos do you put on your Rhino Rider that you can't keep as Cavalry? That question of course leads to, why, exactly, does the Cavalry not have access to those promotions? If they seem reasonable for the Cavlary unit too then why aren't they accessible for Cavalry?

The promotions that are only for Melee are Assistance of Inanna, Poison Tips, Glorious, Tattoos, Industrial espionage and sneak, and all the terrain promotions, cold, warm, field, wetlands, guerrilla, woodsman, forestry, hillman. These can be useful for mounted as well, especially Inanna and Glorious, Inanna gives more xp % and Glorious gives st, city attack, march, and 50% more xp.

Also, how do I make new buttons for a new promotion? I have button maker but that only gives the background color, I need the yellow part.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Can someone please change one or the other icons for these promotions, thx (see attached) Both have the same icons currently

I'm happy to generate a new icon for the Chemical warfare one. I've noticed those before and taken note to address them eventually. I'll try to get it done next weekend.

Too late! Here are new icons/buttons for Chemical I, Chemical II and Chemical III using the Chemical symbol. Note the other uses the Radioactive symbol so it should be fine for those promotions. Enjoy!

 

[Thunderbrd]

The promotions that are only for Melee are Assistance of Inanna, Poison Tips, Glorious, Tattoos, Industrial espionage and sneak, and all the terrain promotions, cold, warm, field, wetlands, guerrilla, woodsman, forestry, hillman. These can be useful for mounted as well, especially Inanna and Glorious, Inanna gives more xp % and Glorious gives st, city attack, march, and 50% more xp.

Also, how do I make new buttons for a new promotion? I have button maker but that only gives the background color, I need the yellow part.

Hydro sent me some button backgrounds... I can go take a look in a bit. He might have it packaged for sharing already too.

Ok, so we have:

• Assistance of Inanna: Hmm, perhaps it might be good to start giving this promotion to Mounted units as well. That would be a step towards the same direction as we made when we began finally allowing Mounted units to gain City Raider Promotions. Does anyone have any arguments as to whether or not Melee units should be stronger than Mounted by default against cities? Its an issue I'm somewhat on the fence about. In some ways I feel mounted units should perhaps be better at field fighting than Melee and vice versa, because Melee units being on foot would have greater maneuverability IN a city... to take cover, invade buildings, etc... But on the other hand, a charge at the city gate could certainly be just as well or better pulled off by Mounted units. Either way I think we need to make up our minds on this matter rather than remain in the strange in-between we're in now.
  
  
• Poison Tips: Gotta say... it makes sense that Gunpowder units of any kind wouldn't get this advantage and does not make sense if they do.
  
  
• Glorious: Sounds like it could apply to just about any unit, particularly mounted! I'm wondering why it can't currently apply to Cavalry then...
  
  
• Tattoos: Tattoos doesn't sound like something that would apply for anything more advanced than the Renaissance age though so I'd think that should have wider access but also be turned off with a tech obsoletion at some point.
  
  
• Industrial espionage: Really don't know on that one. Sounds like a later game promotion and something that Riders should be able to get if Melee can get them...
  
  
• Sneak: Melee units get Sneak? Ok, perhaps since they're on their feet they can move stealthily perhaps but surely its a bad idea to allow a mounted unit to have such a skill at any time ever! Horses are not known for stealth!
  
  
• all the terrain promotions, cold, warm, field, wetlands, guerrilla, woodsman, forestry, hillman: Yep... never have understood why mounted shouldn't have access to these (or a variant of them at least... see below). Especially considering that they are/should be some of the best units for attacking with in terrains outside the city. Although there are SOME select terrains that mounted units probably wouldn't do well in such as Jungle and Swamp, but developing skill in riding and fighting IN those terrains is not a bad idea.
  
  HOWEVER, here's the issue there... I just realized this... Those Promotion Lines begin with defensive bonuses and you would not be able to benefit from the first promotions there on MOST mounted units as a result. Most mounted units are unable to use defensive bonuses from terrain, even if modified from a promotion.
  
  So maybe a comparable terrain line specifically for Mounted units might be in order to account for that. Then, when a unit loses the previous ones for whatever upgrade reason, the mounted could reselect from the same type of promotion benefits if you like. There are some other possible solutions too... like splitting up the attack and defense and giving the split of the two on each step. Or having a terrain attack line and a terrain defense line instead of one for each that goes through defense to attack as it improves. OR simply make it possible to take a promotion that is completely meaningless (the first step of many of these) for the mounted unit, so that it can achieve the more meaningful promotions it unlocks.

Some food for thought and discussion anyhow...

Too late! Here are new icons/buttons for Chemical I, Chemical II and Chemical III using the Chemical symbol. Note the other uses the Radioactive symbol so it should be fine for those promotions. Enjoy!

Thanks bud! That's one less thing to do then

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

For some reason privateers can get both blitz and sniper promotions which both give "multiple attacks".

 

[strategyonly]

For some reason privateers can get both blitz and sniper promotions which both give "multiple attacks".

I think its a promotion mishap, that will take alot more time, and enthusiasm to do. Meaning YES you have a point, BUT (isn't there always a BUT) until WE change the promotionline even more or change the way it presently works, it will take it down to miniscule details (i believe) to accomplish the differentiated difference between the both. The Sniper is just as such, a unit that is in the distance, taking out a high value "item" and being able to do so for more than 1 time without being seen or being caught.
But Blitz, is a completely different kind of a so called "multiple times" unit. IMPO
Does any of this make any sense??