C2C - Units

[DRJ]

I think in C2C there is a later gunpowder unit called combat engineer so why not have an ancient and medieval predecessor that then upgrades to it?

• First one could be the miner/mineur, available with - you guess it - mining. When being placed next to a city with walls, he has a certain % of chance to inflict damage. (Higher chance if the city is built on sand, lower on rocky, other terrains medium - with the exception to not be able to use in muddy terrain before the drainage tech)
  
  The method would be to drill tunnels and at one time burn the stabilizing wood in the tunnel, letting the tunnel collapse and hopefully have the wall sinking in or at least be destabilized.
  
  It would take long and would not always be of good result (it would be shorter to be done on sand, longer on rocky terrain etc.)
  
  graphics: "dark" worker?
  
  
  Spoiler :

  
  example: you want to attack enemies border outpost near you border. He built in on a desert tile right next to you and managed to have walls in there before you had time to deal with it or a peace agreement runs out. What to do now? Rush 2 or 3 miners and a few troops and have them camped next to the city a few turns.
  If no enemy miners would be present, the walls would be damaged at one time,
  pushing the city defense below the can-attack-now-margin
  
  If enemy miners would be present, each turn the enemy miner would have a chance to interrupt ("thwart" the mining attempt - like I posted at another thread today, here we see a unit that could be a worker, combat unit and pseudo spy unit at the same time!) at the cost of being damaged while thwarting (here we have the airplane mechanic in place as well!), or the enemy miner could fail and not hold the mining attempt, your mine would successfully collapse.
  
  
  
• The renaissance unit would be the sapper/sappeur, available with gunpowder.
  It would be able to inflict larger damage to the defenses than the ancient miner.
  
  Sappers can also build roads and forts. Stacks with a sappeur would fortify to 25% in 3 turns instead of 5 turns.
  
  fresh graphics for sapper (03/25/13):
  http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=491701&highlight=sapper
  
  
• In industrial era, the combat engineer takes its place, being able to build roads, railways, forts, bunkers, trenches, airfields and also mines (think of the australian? miners in WW1!) + minefields (I don't know if that has been modded yet);
  
  units with a C E nearby can attack over river without penalty (ponton bridges) and also be max "fortified" (25%) after just 1 turn of "doing nothing" instead of 5 turns like normal.

Re-posted from ideas and discussion thread

 

[Thunderbrd]

Along those lines, I'd LOVE to see ls612 get back to rounding out the Combat Worker project!

Sappers were usually killed in their efforts. It would be a good candidate for a self-destroying effect for them to have an ability to destroy a defensive building from a space adjacent to the city (or at least do it a lot of damage once we have a HP/Integrity system in place for those buildings.) I'd love to see sappers in the game and there's a number of ways we could go about implementing them.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@DRJ

Believe it or not Sappers were on my request list way back when I first posted suggestions to Afforess in RoM/AND. It has been on the back burner for me along with Petards. The main hurdles with the Sappers was implementation. I thought about city bombarding, but it did not seem right. I like your ideas, and having workers have both combat and working is something that got recently fixed.

Also I can't find the combat engineer in C2C. You sure it was implemented into the mod?

Here is a counter proposal for stats. Rather than at gunpowder how about this ...

Sapper
Graphic: Here
Icon: ?
Type: Siege/Combatant
Strength: ?
Movement: 1
Cost: 150
Req Tech: Engineering
Req Resource: -
Req Building: -
Upgrades To: Petard

Special Abilities

• Can Build Roads and Forts
• Can Fortify to 25% in 3 turns instead of 5 turns.
• Can Tunnel into Cities and Weaken Defenses

Note: Use Infantry as a Base.

-----

So it would go ...

Miner (Mining) -> Sapper (Engineering) -> Petard (Gunpowder) -> Combat Engineer (Explosives)

 

[ls612]

Along those lines, I'd LOVE to see ls612 get back to rounding out the Combat Worker project!

Sappers were usually killed in their efforts. It would be a good candidate for a self-destroying effect for them to have an ability to destroy a defensive building from a space adjacent to the city (or at least do it a lot of damage once we have a HP/Integrity system in place for those buildings.) I'd love to see sappers in the game and there's a number of ways we could go about implementing them.

I can't do that till Koshling's planned Strategic AI framework for SAD and other things is in place, otherwise the AI will not use them at all. But I still have the old files for that so it isn't out of the question.

@Hydro: I think that DRJ was refering to the Combat Engineer which was an old Combat worker.

 

[DRJ]

@DRJ
(...)

So it would go ...

Miner (Mining) -> Sapper (Engineering) -> Petard (Gunpowder) -> Combat Engineer (Explosives)

That looks perfect to me!

I can't do that till Koshling's planned Strategic AI framework for SAD and other things is in place, otherwise the AI will not use them at all.

I proposed to let it be a worker, pseudo spy, siege and even pseudo air unit ("interception damage" when thwarting is successful).
It's multipurpose.

So why wouldn't AI use it, if AI
a) feared nearby enemy and thus was triggered to build walls, which would be (one of) the prerequisite(s) to build the miners etc in a city so Ai wouldn't build them everywhere
b) feared nearby "air superiority of enemy" (as it's a pseudo plane!)
c) feared nearby pseudo spy superioty
d) was triggered because of terrain (because city is on sand for example, AI knows that it should be aware of a danger from underground)
-- Is there such a tag that anticipates the likeliness of AI unit appearance (building/amassing) to terrain?

Regarding AI offense with it idk, but as it would have built some for defense, it would take them to the front when on offense, later, I guess - right?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I can't do that till Koshling's planned Strategic AI framework for SAD and other things is in place, otherwise the AI will not use them at all. But I still have the old files for that so it isn't out of the question.

S&D wouldn't have much to do with it but by this comment I presume the two of you had worked out some plans on how this would be effectively done and at this time you're simply waiting for those things to be done - otherwise if you went in and directly adjusted the issues that gave the AI trouble with the combat worker it would be a moot point once he got his changes completed?

Makes sense. I know he had some great ideas for how to setup a better command structure for the AI in general.

 

[ls612]

S&D wouldn't have much to do with it but by this comment I presume the two of you had worked out some plans on how this would be effectively done and at this time you're simply waiting for those things to be done - otherwise if you went in and directly adjusted the issues that gave the AI trouble with the combat worker it would be a moot point once he got his changes completed?

Makes sense. I know he had some great ideas for how to setup a better command structure for the AI in general.

IIRC Koshling said that he was going to make a framework that would make it easier to have multuple units coordinate with each other and give the AI some central control of unit actions, which is what this needs to work.

 

[kevinman4404]

Hydromancerx- here you go. I believe I sent a copy of the mod to The Capo at some point, or it will be made publicly available (sourceforge?) soon.
best
Kevin

 

[Hydromancerx]

Thanks so much! Saw your other thread. Nice that your making the files public.

Hope someone picks up your mod. At the very least these graphics will be put to use in C2C.

 

[Nimek]

some minor bug in one unit localization.

Catapult comes at siege warfare where trebuchet is available

In reality catapult was ancient/clasical unit and trebuchet medieval that replaced catapult.

So catapult should comes much earlier than now. A tthe same time where batering ram i think.

 

[DRJ]

Or maybe at Mathematics?

After all, they needed to calculate how much force was needed to throw the stones as far as they wanted them to, depending on hwo heavy the stones were and how good the machinery... well, sure, could also have been trial and error but ballistic trajectory is part of (maybe more or less intuitive) math, imo.

From the gameplay viewpoint its also earlier than siege warfare and later than ram, so it would nicely fit in between.

 

[Nimek]

Mathematics is good idea.

In civ 1 catapults come with mathematics. Also now this tech is almost empty.

 

[Faustmouse]

Or maybe at Mathematics?

After all, they needed to calculate how much force was needed to throw the stones as far as they wanted them to, depending on hwo heavy the stones were and how good the machinery... well, sure, could also have been trial and error but ballistic trajectory is part of (maybe more or less intuitive) math, imo.

From the gameplay viewpoint its also earlier than siege warfare and later than ram, so it would nicely fit in between.

But if you want to calculate that you'd need a basic understandment of Physics as well.
When I think of Catapults, I imagine the Onagers from AoE II. While they could be used against buildings, they are very effective in killing units. In Empire Earth Catapults are almost purely unit-killers while trebuchets are anti-building.

So they could co-exist (at least some time) with different specializations.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The prerequisite building would need to be moved as well would it not?

 

[Nimek]

@TB

We can also move siege weapon workshop to earlier tech.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Just reminding us of the issue if we are going to move the Cat prereq tech.

 

[Dissonance]

I was reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine#Ancient_siege_engines

According to that, ancient siege weapons development went battering ram > siege ramp > siege tower > gastraphetes (primitive thrower) > onager > catapult/ballista

However, most of those came relatively late into history, so the technological delay may well be justified.

Here are relevant ancient siege weapons:
Heliopolis (siege tower, Greek), Sambuca (naval siege platform, Greek) or Corvus (Roman), gastraphetes (primitive thrower, Roman), onager (primitive grape shot thrower, Roman), rotating arcuballista (Chinese), Levered Catapult (Chinese)

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Romans used a siege "tower" against the Israelites which contained multiple catapults, scorpions (spear throwers), flame throwers as well as troops. It was the famous last battle, or almost last battle in the conquest by Rome. (My memory is going)

 

[Hydromancerx]

some minor bug in one unit localization.

Catapult comes at siege warfare where trebuchet is available

In reality catapult was ancient/clasical unit and trebuchet medieval that replaced catapult.

So catapult should comes much earlier than now. A tthe same time where batering ram i think.

Trebuchet comes at Engineering not Siege Warfare.

Siege Warfare = Classical Era
Engineering = Medieval Era

Catapult (Siege Warfare (x32)) -> Trebuchet (Engineering (x35)) -> Bombard (Gunpowder (x42))

I don't know where you are looking but they are fine the way they are. Catapults come before Trebuchets.

As for rams ...

Log Ram (Warfare (x12)) -> Battering Ram (The Wheel (x22)) -> Siege Ram (Siege Warfare (x32)) -> Bombard (Gunpowder (x42))

So the Siege Ram and Catapult come at the same time. I do not think the Catapult should come at the same time as the Battering Ram. Mainly because the siege ram is the reaction to the Catapult in that it has heavy armor against catapult fire. Just like how the Battering Ram had some protection from the newly invented Archers at the beginning of the Ancient Era.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I was reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine#Ancient_siege_engines

According to that, ancient siege weapons development went battering ram > siege ramp > siege tower > gastraphetes (primitive thrower) > onager > catapult/ballista

However, most of those came relatively late into history, so the technological delay may well be justified.

Here are relevant ancient siege weapons:
Heliopolis (siege tower, Greek), Sambuca (naval siege platform, Greek) or Corvus (Roman), gastraphetes (primitive thrower, Roman), onager (primitive grape shot thrower, Roman), rotating arcuballista (Chinese), Levered Catapult (Chinese)

Wow... sounds like we could use some of these stepping stones from history to flesh things out a bit more. Very nice. Now... if only we had proper graphics for those

Romans used a siege "tower" against the Israelites which contained multiple catapults, scorpions (spear throwers), flame throwers as well as troops. It was the famous last battle, or almost last battle in the conquest by Rome. (My memory is going)

Those Scorpions, or Spear Throwers sound interesting... if I'm not mistaken, perhaps we could use a unit between skirmisher and arsonist? Or perhaps these are simply 'skirmishers'.

This particular super-siege tower could also make for a VERY interesting Global Unit unlocked by a wonder?

Trebuchet comes at Engineering not Siege Warfare.

Siege Warfare = Classical Era
Engineering = Medieval Era

Catapult (Siege Warfare (x32)) -> Trebuchet (Engineering (x35)) -> Bombard (Gunpowder (x42))

I don't know where you are looking but they are fine the way they are. Catapults come before Trebuchets.

As for rams ...

Log Ram (Warfare (x12)) -> Battering Ram (The Wheel (x22)) -> Siege Ram (Siege Warfare (x32)) -> Bombard (Gunpowder (x42))

So the Siege Ram and Catapult come at the same time. I do not think the Catapult should come at the same time as the Battering Ram. Mainly because the siege ram is the reaction to the Catapult in that it has heavy armor against catapult fire. Just like how the Battering Ram had some protection from the newly invented Archers at the beginning of the Ancient Era.

I have to agree here actually. This breakdown shows some good thought has been put into the progression as it stands.


@Hydro (also): I gave some proposed sub-category sub-combats to siege on our document... can you check that and see if it sounds like it would work for us? I think our siege is in really strong need of being sub-categorized to clarify the intentions of the units and to help guide further promo developments and access structures.