Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
I was mostly thinking of buildings. However aren't the Combat and Sub-combat types enough? Along with the various Techs.
C2C - Units
- Thread starter EldrinFal
- Start date
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
It might be enough to start with, but it would mean I would have to make every unit upgrade chain have its own unitcombat type. I've been wondering if I do or not and how to manage the modifiers that stem from being of multiple types.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Looking into this further, missionaries were set to -1 in vanilla, as were animal units, so it's probably necessary for a number of units to be made impossible to be selected for an advanced game start. However, in Vanilla files I have seen absolutely no use that wasn't -1 or 100, so it makes me wonder why it's not just a simple bool. I know that takes generally the same amount of data if setup the usual way but I think it's been said elsewhere by some of our more advanced programmers here that it can be done in a way that's data cheaper so we might want to eventually look into doing that, just converting it over to a bAdvancedStart tag.
iAdvancedStartCostIncrease was introduced in BtS and wasn't in Vanilla. Why they bothered in BtS is beyond the sorting because they didn't have any units using it... maybe in a specialized mod included in that release but not in the core. I'm with you 100% on this... we don't need it and it just makes our current units a bit more confusing as to why some are using it at all.
If we make it so that all player relative requirements (meaning no city specific requirements) must be fulfilled to be able to place a unit in advanced start (I think it actually already is), and if we additionally blanket ban world wonders and units from advanced start then I see little reason to keep this tag in any form either.
Missionaries require state religion, that's a player requirement, animals have -1 iCost so those are already excluded from advanced start I think.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I'm not sure the AI could be made to consider this would mean it needs not only the mine improvements on minerals but also the routes and the entire building chains to get to even the core units that would make a difference. But I can see how thinking down this road, very similar to how we arranged things for the Barbarian to Civ unit validations (and it could use the same function to determine that...) I think we very well could eliminate the tag and it would be a worthy savings to do so.
Yeah... no city specific requirements are needed to be fulfilled was what i was trying to say, only the player specific requirements needs to be fulfilled.
It is easy to exclude cultural units by filtering out any units that require a bonus that is of the BONUSCLASS_CULTURE type.
Buildings may be a bit more complicated, but I was mostly thinking the tag should go for units, haven't properly thought about buildings in this regard atm.
Edit: If you in advanced start have enough points to get e.g. animal riding tech, then I see no issue in being able to start with some horsemen even if you don't have the horse bonus connected to any cities.
Last edited:
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
Guerrillas (HN, unlimited) upgrade to Modern and then Hitech Snipers, which are non-HN and limited units. This means the Guerrilla is basically obsoleted (with the latter sniper at Superstrong Alloys) without having a replacement.
I have one guerrilla left, my only HN unit which can capture units and cities. Guerrillas are quite OP when you get them, but they should not obsolete without being replaced (and they're not OP anymore in mid-Transhuman).
Another more minor thing, this time regarding Special Forces. I'm not sure if they're supposed to be able to go anywhere including cities without Open Borders, but they can. The units they upgrade to (Special Infantry -> Super Soldier) cannot however, so they are also effectively without an upgrade path.
I have one guerrilla left, my only HN unit which can capture units and cities. Guerrillas are quite OP when you get them, but they should not obsolete without being replaced (and they're not OP anymore in mid-Transhuman).
Another more minor thing, this time regarding Special Forces. I'm not sure if they're supposed to be able to go anywhere including cities without Open Borders, but they can. The units they upgrade to (Special Infantry -> Super Soldier) cannot however, so they are also effectively without an upgrade path.
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
There are upgrades planned in the unit review project. They will lead to Mercenary Contractors OR HT Snipers.
The review has also Planned for Special Forces to be able to upgrade to Advanced Marines, Wingsuit Paratroopers OR HT Snipers.
The upgrade chart will be greatly improved when this project is complete.
Hopefully there won't be units and their upgrades closer than 3 columns.
There are some units, that have upgrade in same column or column later.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
This is an interesting observation that I made when initially charting things out as they are before moving forward.
What I found as I looked closer at this phenomenon was that we seem to have hit on an interesting point about weapons technology development patterns.
Originally, this starts happening at certain points in the early part of the tech tree, for example around the introduction of large siege units. At that initial opening of a new major weapon development, you see a rapid sequence of upgrades. Now, this was based on placing those improvements where they belong on the timeline through the tech tree of RL developments in those weapons. You see the same with tanks, air power and more. Then, moving forward into the future, Hydro left us with unit upgrade paths that also travel through rapid upgrades at first opening, particularly with robotics.
I think what we are seeing is a natural effect, that when we invent something new and powerful, we go through a rapid period of focus on that new technology and significant steps of improvement.
When I began with the review it was partially my intent to spread out all upgrades to an even degree as much as I could, but this observation was quite interesting and I felt it should be retained once I noticed what it was really reflective of.
Otherwise, I do generally TRY to space out longstanding unit chain upgrades somewhat evenly much as the tree allowed and it did allow it impressively in many cases. Once a weapon tech reaches a stride, it gets regular upgrades at very rational intervals and moving into the far future, it gets more and more regular in terms of the spacing between those upgrades.
On Blitz you can skip "prototype" stage altogether easily by beelining.
Opposite effect would be on Eternity, when you research all techs in column before going to next one.
Then those "prototypes" would be built.
Can those "prototypes" upgrade not to next unit in chain, but two units from it?
Example : A is unlocked at 70th column, B is unlocked at 70th to 72th column (close range upgrade), unit C is unlocked at 75th column.
A upgrades to B, which upgrades to C.
Then A wouldn't upgrade to B at all, but it would upgrade to C directly.
Then A - prototype of B would be viable unit for longer, for example cheaper to build or had lower requirements to build/maintain.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Not if you want to maintain any kind of historical accuracy, no it would not be possible. It would require a huge restructuring of the tech tree, particularly in the WWI-WWII era developments. And such a restructuring would break up the reason that techs were placed where they are based on the dating of their RL sequence of emergence.
And yes, if you play a super fast game you will miss out on a lot of the granular detail that C2C has built into it, and if that's what you prefer, that's fine.
Well then what about upgrades, that are placed in same column as units themselves?
This is like those techs were in separate column initially but were squished to same column at some point.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I'm not aware of any that exist but I redesigned the upgrade paths without concern for what we currently have and there aren't any of those in the plan.
The naval stuff is an absolute mess but it became apparent that the land units need to be reworked first for the sake of a better established interaction of unit balances of power so that naval can then have some more standard measuring points to work off of as I get back to updating that plan. I mention that because it's possible some of what you are pointing to might be what's taking place in some naval upgrade chains and though the original naval unit evaluation plan was definitely going to sort that out, it's taken a back burner in planning at the moment.
Example:
Attack Submarine upgrades to Nuclear Submarine.
Both are unlocked in same column Advanced Rocketry/Deep Sea Exploration respectively.
QShip is unlocked at Submarine Warfare, and has upgrade in same column - Coast Guard Cutter in Coast Guard tech, that unit doesn't have upgrade.
Those two aren't part of bigger upgrade chain.
So looks like QShip could be deleted or moved somewhere else.
On unrelated note unit upgrade tree in pedia loads within 10 seconds now when opening it for first time.
It then takes few seconds in subsequent loads.
Last edited:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah I'm not reviewing naval units right now but some of the mess there, particularly among submarines, lit the fuse that has led to where I am now. Once the land units are fixed, the naval units can be realigned to that established set of power balance guidelines better and the naval review can be updated and hopefully fairly quickly then resolved.
It's like ironing a shirt. You might have one problem spot but you might have to hit it last or you create other problem spots that make it harder to iron the thing effectively and efficiently by the time it's complete.
It's like ironing a shirt. You might have one problem spot but you might have to hit it last or you create other problem spots that make it harder to iron the thing effectively and efficiently by the time it's complete.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Just an update, I was able to get some time this weekend to get a good segment completed, mapping out the entire land unit collateral and flanking values - boy as it is it is truly a mess and I found that flanking isn't working on a lot of units because they have no iCollateralDamageMaxUnits set (which apparently sets the # of units that can be flanked). There might be other bugs but this one stood out as an obvious one. So when this plan goes into effect on our units, I'll make sure to debug the rest of it if there are any further problems there.
That means techs, upgrades, combat values, movement, withdraw/pursuit, production costs, collateral/flanking have all been plotted out now. I'll have to look at my tag list and see what the next major thing to sort out for them all is. There's still a lot to go here but just wanted to let y'all know that progress, slow as it is, IS taking place in this long stretch of absence of my direct action on the mod.
That means techs, upgrades, combat values, movement, withdraw/pursuit, production costs, collateral/flanking have all been plotted out now. I'll have to look at my tag list and see what the next major thing to sort out for them all is. There's still a lot to go here but just wanted to let y'all know that progress, slow as it is, IS taking place in this long stretch of absence of my direct action on the mod.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
In the absence of new graphics, it just occurred to me you can make new units by grouping two or more existing graphics together. For example, the next two upgrades of the Guerrilla could be represented by a Guerrilla plus a Modern Sniper, and then a Guerrilla plus a Hitech Sniper.
The possibilities may not be exactly endless, and some combinations aren't going to work (Mapinguari/Assassin lol), but arithmetic suggests you can more than double your options.
The possibilities may not be exactly endless, and some combinations aren't going to work (Mapinguari/Assassin lol), but arithmetic suggests you can more than double your options.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I plan to learn the art and such when I get to that point. Much as will be necessary anyhow. Used to work with 3d art and I've always known I CAN figure it out. It's just time consuming. But once I have a complete plan I'll dive in and build it out from the earliest part of the game to the end.
Just completed the Bombardment stat planning portion of that project last night. Progress continues.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Just another update here: Air combat stuff (interception) has been reworked in the plan (that was a bit of a mess in terms of the progressions and so on as well). Once this goes into implementation, there will be a little change to the way interception vs evasion works and I'll explain in more detail then.
Capture tags have been given a quick and cursory look over - I didn't want to do much with them unless it's on a cultural unit to give that unit something special but I retained some of the values we have now on core units for the rational they were given that stuff initially.
Tags regarding gold upkeep have been reviewed - I must warn that once this goes into effect, most unit lines will be increasingly more expensive to help with balancing gold expansion later in the game. Military should not be cheap and should really be one of the more costly things for the empire and a reason to be a bit more conservative with your forces. Once all this goes into effect, the AI will be sure to be reviewed to ensure that they understand that cost is a major limitation - I think they generally already do but this should tighten that a bit. It's possible that I might add some further tags to create % modifier dials by era or something but at least this sets up some reasonable base guidelines that we don't currently have well crafted out.
All this means that as units upgrade they're going to get more expensive to support. Almost all of them anyhow. Probably not crushingly so, but we shall see. It shouldn't be greatly upsetting to current gold balances which have improved a hell of a lot lately from what I'm seeing in lets plays.
I remapped out conscription and have planned for a rule change or two on that where it will give you a couple different kinds of equally valid units whenever you conscript, rather than just the first highest rated type it finds.
Some review of bMilitaryHappiness tags has been done. Not many changes there.
iCultureGarrison is an interesting tag that makes the city more or less vulnerable to revolt (as @JosEPh_II has recently noted is a major factor with LE and Crime units that he's taken to leveraging quite a bit). I've taken a LITTLE of the power in this away from LE units and given some of that to Entertainers so there is another reason for Entertainers to be maintained in a city. Entertainers ARE Educators at first, but after a while they become 2 different lines with somewhat different primary focuses. This is one area that Entertainers maintain but Educators do not.
Things are going a little faster with the planning now that I have a generic sheet I can quickly copy to introduce the next set of tags by theme for evaluation. Still no end in sight (when all this moves into an application phase) but real progress continues to be made at least.
Capture tags have been given a quick and cursory look over - I didn't want to do much with them unless it's on a cultural unit to give that unit something special but I retained some of the values we have now on core units for the rational they were given that stuff initially.
Tags regarding gold upkeep have been reviewed - I must warn that once this goes into effect, most unit lines will be increasingly more expensive to help with balancing gold expansion later in the game. Military should not be cheap and should really be one of the more costly things for the empire and a reason to be a bit more conservative with your forces. Once all this goes into effect, the AI will be sure to be reviewed to ensure that they understand that cost is a major limitation - I think they generally already do but this should tighten that a bit. It's possible that I might add some further tags to create % modifier dials by era or something but at least this sets up some reasonable base guidelines that we don't currently have well crafted out.
All this means that as units upgrade they're going to get more expensive to support. Almost all of them anyhow. Probably not crushingly so, but we shall see. It shouldn't be greatly upsetting to current gold balances which have improved a hell of a lot lately from what I'm seeing in lets plays.
I remapped out conscription and have planned for a rule change or two on that where it will give you a couple different kinds of equally valid units whenever you conscript, rather than just the first highest rated type it finds.
Some review of bMilitaryHappiness tags has been done. Not many changes there.
iCultureGarrison is an interesting tag that makes the city more or less vulnerable to revolt (as @JosEPh_II has recently noted is a major factor with LE and Crime units that he's taken to leveraging quite a bit). I've taken a LITTLE of the power in this away from LE units and given some of that to Entertainers so there is another reason for Entertainers to be maintained in a city. Entertainers ARE Educators at first, but after a while they become 2 different lines with somewhat different primary focuses. This is one area that Entertainers maintain but Educators do not.
Things are going a little faster with the planning now that I have a generic sheet I can quickly copy to introduce the next set of tags by theme for evaluation. Still no end in sight (when all this moves into an application phase) but real progress continues to be made at least.
Similar threads
