I dont like slow/fast cc.
Why can you use movement points of fighting units.
Slow, No designation, Fast - all this is to control is access to NO, lesser, greater promotion lines regarding Movement, Withdrawal, and Pursuit. That's it. The reason for being slow or fast is mostly a matter of how quick and agile the unit is. Movement speed is an overland measurement and a very rapidly travelling unit that cannot maneuver effectively at top speed is not a Fast unit. Slow/Fast is entirely relative to its contemporary peers as well.
We can't use movement speed because movement speed does not indicate the mobility of the unit and because we need a combat class to help shape access to promotionlines or I'll need some sort of MinSpeedPrereq tag for promo prereqs and that wouldn't well reflect maneuverability or reaction speed.
It's also for combination triggers, like, Fast (&) Mounted, Slow (&) Melee etc...
I would love to see mobilty type subcombat.
Foot, mounted, wheeled, hovercraft etc.
Foot cc will be useful to tweak traps line. We should decide what cc categories should be added to all combatants.
Motility (not mobility) means the way the people in the unit get around. Thus, Foot, Riding, Driving, Piloting are categories. Hovercraft, Helicopter, Wheeled are all primary combat class categories and at times these could be interchangeable with other motility classes such as the traps example. The main reason for maintaining the categories as intended for motility is in disease susceptibility and other vulnerability factors.
A man-eating tiger is not going to know that there's a meaty man that could be eaten within that Driven tank but would be pretty clear there's a meal riding on another meal on a Riding unit or a very vulnerable meal on Foot. Thus his Maneater promotion combat values are going to be most effective against Foot units, then less effective the further removed from exposure the unit becomes along the Motility CC definition gradient.
Leprosy in the environment is less likely to get at a Piloted Helicopter than it is a Foot soldier.
What's a riding unit that isn't a mounted unit? Mounted should be how the unit goes to battle. A unit that doesn't fight from the saddle shouldn't be a mounted unit. Furthermore, with Riding its a matter of a fully exposed body on top of something that gets it around. A motorcycle would be a riding unit.
And yes, we need to define the Motility and Primary Combats as a priority too... I just haven't gotten through those lists yet. It takes about 8-12 hrs to go through all units planning assignments to any given category there so none of these are minimal efforts. And I figure the XML will take equally as long or longer to apply. I diverted to some programming for the last few weeks to immediately address some tags for the siege project and to take care of some emergent concerns brought up by the fast/slow withdraw/pursuit evaluations. I'd interrupted myself to plan out Pursuit because I could see from my wife's game how unbalanced early withdrawal can be without pursuit being in play.
In short, getting back to further plotting out the CCs on all units is still top priority at the moment - I've just got one thing after another interrupting the planning there
How looks units name in XML vs those used in your google doc?
Well... the <Type> tag expresses a unit's XML name, such as UNIT_RANGER. In MOST cases the name correlates. The name is taken from the final expression which is what is programmed into the TXT reference (<Description> tag) for the unit's name in the text files. Those TXT references can be just about anywhere within the text xml folder. A quick search with WinGrep through the Text folder for the <Description> tag reference should find what the name is on any units that don't obviously match their XML name to their name as expressed in the pedia.
So try it at some point. Open WinGrep and search the Assets/XML/Text file for all references to say, TXT_KEY_UNIT_AARDVARK, to see what the UNIT_AARDVARK is called in-game. We need to match all these up in this document, putting the <Type> tag reference in the unit's <Type> tag field on the document so that we can very easily reference it when we go to make planned changes according to these docs.
I'm sure you can do the same with CCs as well, though those should almost ALL be <Type> name matched to the actual CC name pretty closely.
How to add subcombatt class to xml. I added siege_gatecrasher to rams but it didnot worked.
A good example is the Work Animal:
Code:
<Combat>UNITCOMBAT_WORKER</Combat>
<SubCombatTypes>
<SubCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_CIVILIAN</SubCombatType>
<SubCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_CANINE</SubCombatType>
</SubCombatTypes>
This has a primary unit combat of Worker and 2 subcombats, civilian and canine. If it were to be given more its simply a matter of adding more <SubCombatType>such and such</SubCombatType> lines nested between <SubCombatTypes> and </SubCombatTypes>.
This expresses the proper syntax. Keep in mind that tags must go in proper order as established by the order they are expressed under UnitTypes in the schema and it sounds like you may have forgotten to use the actual Type tag reference for the gatecrasher siege. You should open up the UnitCombatInfos file to view that reference if in doubt. (alt-f search is your best friend in any text editor - alt-f and search for something you know will be part of that entry and probably not part of any other, like the term 'gatecrasher')
You'll find that the Gatecrasher siege <Type> reference is: UNITCOMBAT_SIEGE_GATECRASHER.
I'd be willing to bet you forgot to include the part at the beginning: UNITCOMBAT_
