C2C - Units

[Yudishtira]

1. I was just using the default value for Withdraw. So whatever the other equivalent units have.

2. Yeah. See the Horse units for combat classes except substitute in camel instead of horse.

Okay thanks. The download only includes one kfm. It seems to cause the cavalry and trench cavalry to point their gun stiffly out to the right. I have PMed Kathy in case there's a known remedy.

 

[Jarolleon]

As of SVN build 7668 the Galleon has a cargo space of 12 while the dutch East Indiaman has a cargo space of 7, and so does the paddle steamer. It seems the cargo space was doubled for some random reason. I would fix it and commit but then all of my other personal tweaks would be uploaded.

 

[strategyonly]

As of SVN build 7668 the Galleon has a cargo space of 12 while the dutch East Indiaman has a cargo space of 7, and so does the paddle steamer. It seems the cargo space was doubled for some random reason. I would fix it and commit but then all of my other personal tweaks would be uploaded.

Dont know where you come up with the cargo of 12, UNLESS you have added promotions that do so, because the default is this:

<iCargo>6</iCargo>

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm putting this in as 15% (same for all 4 units), so without Fight of Flight it goes down to 7. If that 's not what you mean, pls let me know ASAP.

Also, the unitcombat for rifles is the same as that for arquebuses and muskets. I suggest a small increment (for arquebus -> musket -> rifle) in the ranged attack values is in order. I'll do +5% per step for accuracy, damage & max damage unless I hear otherwise.

1. I was just using the default value for Withdraw. So whatever the other equivalent units have.

2. Yeah. See the Horse units for combat classes except substitute in camel instead of horse.

1) The withdrawal should be balanced according to this chart system here. Just insert the unit wherever it appropriately fits in with the unit role headers and where it fits among those units in the lists it applies to. This will show you by comparisons to the units around them what kind of values would be appropriate and if you feel some small amount of differentiating offset is meaningful for this unit you can deviate their values from the other neighboring units. But usually you can infer a baseline to go off of.

So basically Hydro's saying he hasn't thought through the withdrawal values at all. This chart is about the only way we can keep withdrawal, pursuit and early withdrawal values in any kind of harmony. It must not only be referenced but any unit that's given withdrawal should be added to the chart. I hope others may be able to figure out how to utilize this - it would make the unit reviews take up much less time and as a result I might stop grumbling to myself about us adding units when we are past due for release!


2) Did you ever read my post on how to assign values to Ranged Bombard? I know you're clever enough to be able to follow it Yudishtira... I'll have to go hunting down where I posted that... It was a while back when you last asked about that subject.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Ah yes... Ok found it on the last page of the unit updates thread... reposting here:


I THINK these links lead to the right pages here but:
Withdrawal, pursuit and early withdrawal assignments have been planned and can easily be fit into the numeric patterns shown here. I put all the units that have any of those three values under each of these combat class groups and while each group has its own guidelines, which I hope become immediately obvious, you can also see how some units violate those guidelines or blend them with the guidelines of other CCs they may also be a part of. Some CCs have gently expanding values, others flat values across the board. You can see why every point wasn't brought up for mass discussion - there's too many to discuss So far they seem to be working. Then when the game is not on fight or flight, no pursuit or early withdraw exists and the withdrawal value becomes halved (thanks to coding - nothing to be done in the xml itself). This is also across the board and keeps the values to something within 100% (though it doesn't absolutely have to since there's a diminishing return on values over 50% when not on fight or flight.)


Here is the first step of assigning the ranged combat values. Here's how this works:

The values shown on the line that only has the combat class listed shows the base values of the combat class. These amounts will apply to all units of that class as they are programmed right onto the combat class values so in this case the combat classes form the base values. (thus the name of the tags in CC form ending in 'base')

1) Find the x grid value of the unit based on its greatest tech prereq.
2) Place the unit in x grid order among each of the combat classes it has among these CCs.
3) Give some rational consideration to assigning adjusting unit values that are similar and compared to those units around them on the same x grid.

For example, on a particular x grid, range may be holding at 0, accuracy at +15, Damage at +15, Damage Limit at +15 and # of additional targets at +1. Our new unit has numerous guns but the unit moves very fast and doesn't take the most careful aim but also has a tendancy to hit a greater percentage of the individuals in a given target unit as a result of this somewhat chaotic fire pattern. The bullets of the weapon themselves are fairly medium grade for the tech era so probably damage would be standard. However, it doesn't have a very wide angle spray when it fires, no more than the unit that's kinda forming that base established values as explained above anyhow.

So we take from the added accuracy by say 10 and leave it at 5 (now we're at +10) and we leave Damage at the base +15 we're currently running at according to the x-grid region we're in. We add that 10 we took away from accuracy to the Damage Limit (% of individuals tending to be struck in the unit) and we leave the # of additional targets at 1. See how that works?

4) Repeat for each combat class, ignoring the results of the previous combat class and the comparisons it came up with there due to the units around it in the same x-grid on that list. Each combat class gets a review for the unit as if the unit was ONLY using that weapon at this stage.

5) Take the unit definition lines for each combat class evaluated and put them one over the top of the other on a new page. Then:

6) Compare all the base values and take only the highest of each and add them to a line underneath that will be compiled to show what the unit will be finally expressed as in end-game values.

7) Find the highest total of each value and place those down into the final total lines.

8) Figure out what modifier amount will take the unit from the best value among all combat classes to the best total among all evaluations and make THAT the final unit value xml modifier.

9) Take that Final Unit evaluation line and copy it into all the appropriate spots for the unit under its unit combats on this 2nd page of the evaluation which shows only final results of the evals and shows what the unit should be given in the xml.


Hopefully this process makes sense... if not I can add some visual examples.

 

[Yudishtira]

1) The withdrawal should be balanced according to this chart system here. Just insert the unit wherever it appropriately fits in with the unit role headers and where it fits among those units in the lists it applies to. This will show you by comparisons to the units around them what kind of values would be appropriate and if you feel some small amount of differentiating offset is meaningful for this unit you can deviate their values from the other neighboring units. But usually you can infer a baseline to go off of.

So basically Hydro's saying he hasn't thought through the withdrawal values at all. This chart is about the only way we can keep withdrawal, pursuit and early withdrawal values in any kind of harmony. It must not only be referenced but any unit that's given withdrawal should be added to the chart. I hope others may be able to figure out how to utilize this - it would make the unit reviews take up much less time and as a result I might stop grumbling to myself about us adding units when we are past due for release!

Thanks yes - think I can do that...

Hydro suggested - and I agreed - that we are as far from release now as we were a month ago (when the 'freeze' 'started'), and that situation shows no sign of changing.

2) Did you ever read my post on how to assign values to Ranged Bombard? I know you're clever enough to be able to follow it Yudishtira... I'll have to go hunting down where I posted that... It was a while back when you last asked about that subject.

Tbh, I'm smart enough to not want to have to go through all that...

Compared to the unitcombat (ie. "rifle"), the individual unit's ranged stats are relatively insignificant (unless I'm missing something....else). Sorry but that process will take me hours to learn (I may have learning difficulties you are unaware of), and will seldom make more than 5% worth of difference.

If we are seriously within a week of release, let me know and I'll hold off (some more) on adding these units.

 

[Yudishtira]

It seems to cause the cavalry and trench cavalry to point their gun stiffly out to the right. I have PMed Kathy in case there's a known remedy.

@Hydro:
Update: Kathy points out that the units use their guns properly (ie. combat animation works). However the animation problem while not using them does not seem to have a solution (see attached).

So let me know if they're acceptable as is. Subject to feedback, I would like to upload in say 6 hours...

 

[Yudishtira]

Dont know where you come up with the cargo of 12, UNLESS you have added promotions that do so, because the default is this:

<iCargo>6</iCargo>

Tbrd made a change not so long ago that caused all existing transports to double in cargo capacity. Newly-built ships will be correct. So if that's what Jarolleon is talking about, it's a known bug that cannot be fixed before the upcoming release.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Thanks yes - think I can do that...

Hydro suggested - and I agreed - that we are as far from release now as we were a month ago (when the 'freeze' 'started'), and that situation shows no sign of changing.



Tbh, I'm smart enough to not want to have to go through all that...

Compared to the unitcombat (ie. "rifle"), the individual unit's ranged stats are relatively insignificant (unless I'm missing something....else). Sorry but that process will take me hours to learn (I may have learning difficulties you are unaware of), and will seldom make more than 5% worth of difference.

If we are seriously within a week of release, let me know and I'll hold off (some more) on adding these units.

1) You're probably making more out of it than it really is. I write a lot just to be very detailed to make things easier but it can have the side effect of looking tremendously overwhelming. It's basically a three step process that just flat makes sense is all. Rather intuitive actually and you could probably figure it out just as fast by looking at the numbers as they are arranged. I wouldn't say that the individual unit's ranged stats are at all insignificant - quite significant actually though it may not seem as much so in game. I mean I get what you're saying but at least they should be aligning well with other units in the upgrade path and around their contemporary era in the game.

The spreadsheets for those are in the same doc as the withdrawal sheet... take a look. It'll probably make more sense to you just looking at it.


2)I'm really hoping we're seriously within a week of the release. I've got one more MAJOR and I mean MA-JOR!!!! AIupdate that should conquer two very huge and hideous problems that have plagued the AI for a very long time. Other than that I'm pretty much done and taking a break until we release unless any other huge crash situations emerge that need dealt with as we wait for DH to complete his side of pre-release stuff.

Tbrd made a change not so long ago that caused all existing transports to double in cargo capacity. Newly-built ships will be correct. So if that's what Jarolleon is talking about, it's a known bug that cannot be fixed before the upcoming release.

Oh yeah... forgot about that lingering bug some games will experience on older transport units. Yeah, it'll clear itself over time so I'm not too worried about it.

 

[Yudishtira]

The spreadsheets for those are in the same doc as the withdrawal sheet... take a look. It'll probably make more sense to you just looking at it.

Okay will do, and yes it probably will look more doable that way...

2)I'm really hoping we're seriously within a week of the release....as we wait for DH to complete his side of pre-release stuff.

Not a very realistic hope though is it? How long have you been hoping that?

Nevertheless I basically have four units ready to commit in the next couple of hours (pending my ranged stats review and Hydro's animation feedback). If the unit review is as easy as you sayp), it'll take you 10 minutes tops...(you could even leave the review till after release your break)

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Hydro:
Update: Kathy points out that the units use their guns properly (ie. combat animation works). However the animation problem while not using them does not seem to have a solution (see attached).

So let me know if they're acceptable as is. Subject to feedback, I would like to upload in say 6 hours...

Yeah those look acceptable.

So basically Hydro's saying he hasn't thought through the withdrawal values at all. This chart is about the only way we can keep withdrawal, pursuit and early withdrawal values in any kind of harmony. It must not only be referenced but any unit that's given withdrawal should be added to the chart. I hope others may be able to figure out how to utilize this - it would make the unit reviews take up much less time and as a result I might stop grumbling to myself about us adding units when we are past due for release!

All I am saying is that whatever the horses can do the camels should do. Meaning the withdraw of a Camel Calvary should be the same as a Horse Calvary.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Okay will do, and yes it probably will look more doable that way...



Not a very realistic hope though is it? How long have you been hoping that?

Nevertheless I basically have four units ready to commit in the next couple of hours (pending my ranged stats review and Hydro's animation feedback). If the unit review is as easy as you sayp), it'll take you 10 minutes tops...(you could even leave the review till after release your break)

I've been expecting release for the last two or three weeks though the delay has been good as it's allowed some better debugging time and there were some mean crashes lurking. (Looks like there's yet another one to look into now.)

It's setting myself up to review the units in the first place that kinda sucks - it's not the amount so much as its doing it at all if that makes any sense. So during a cycle I let them all go until I'm preparing for release. Since I'd already taken this step for this cycle it gets frustrating is all. Now that we have some out there it just means that whenever DH is ready I also have to have gotten on top of those that have been done. So if these keep trickling in it's not good. I will have time to get to them by the weekend I think but once I have PLEASE stop until after the release!

Although... the team's getting a little better at making UnitCombat, withdrawal/pursuit/earlywithdrawal and ranged assault value determinations and if I can get everyone fully understanding how to apply those properly (we're close I think) then I won't have anything to worry about.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Side discussion:
This is kinda cool for reference!

 

[Thunderbrd]

Based on recent playtesting I'd like to propose the following adjustments:

• Apollonian Guard be given the Law Enforcement combat class
• Feline Units:
  • +1 rank somewhere among their size matters categories
  • Add the ability to ignore terrain movement costs
  • +1 Movement for at least the Trained Cat
• Canines:
  • Add the ability to ignore terrain movement costs
  • +1 Movement for at least the Trained Dog
• Kayak: -1 Movement so that a Catamaran represents an improvement in movement as well as strength - thereby reducing the exploring effectiveness but not making it lesser than or equivalent to the canoe or raft in speed
• All Rams: Change the maxcombat values to 90 so they have more leeway to get in and damage the walls before running out of hp on the enemy. On less defended cities you can too easily get locked out by minimum defense for entry because you can't damage the defenders any further. Kinda ironic really. I may have to eventually adjust what determines their auto-withdrawal point in a special case consideration.

If nobody has any objections I'll do these today.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Canoe: -1 Movement so that a Catamaran represents an improvement in movement as well as strength - thereby reducing the exploring effectiveness but not making it lesser than or equivalent to the canoe or raft in speed

How can Canoe = but not making it lesser than or equivalent to the canoe or raft in speed?

Did you mean War canoe?

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

Sorry... meant to be putting the Kayak for discussion.

To give a more clear breakdown:
Canoes and Rafts: Mv 1
Kayak: Mv 3
Kayak's upgrade, the Catamaran: Mv 3

Seems to make more sense to me to give the Kayak a mv 2 to gradiate that progression a bit. Taking the next tech to get the Catamaran is immediately available after obtaining Kayaks but it costs a huge amount of research for that era so it becomes a more attractive distraction to what could well be far more important techs to be taking after the Kayak is obtained (along with the work boats, which are what really in many cases have driven me to spam for the tech in the first place.)

So while Catamarans would thus be a major improvement over the kayak and you might wanna just hold off building kayaks at all until you've got the Catamarans, it will be a costly decision to research that next tech when it's going to cost as many rounds to do so as it will.

At the moment, I'm quite happy to simply sit on the Kayak for a while because it has the same amount of mv and can usually get quite a ways before destruction and sometimes survive until upgrade (though a catamaran is almost invincible against shoreline animals and is thus much more survivable.) But if the Kayak is moving one less, it would certainly make the decision MUCH more difficult And thus refinement of design.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Based on recent playtesting I'd like to propose the following adjustments:

• Apollonian Guard be given the Law Enforcement combat class
• Feline Units:
  • +1 rank somewhere among their size matters categories
  • Add the ability to ignore terrain movement costs
  • +1 Movement for at least the Trained Cat
• Canines:
  • Add the ability to ignore terrain movement costs
  • +1 Movement for at least the Trained Dog
• Kayak: -1 Movement so that a Catamaran represents an improvement in movement as well as strength - thereby reducing the exploring effectiveness but not making it lesser than or equivalent to the canoe or raft in speed
• All Rams: Change the maxcombat values to 90 so they have more leeway to get in and damage the walls before running out of hp on the enemy. On less defended cities you can too easily get locked out by minimum defense for entry because you can't damage the defenders any further. Kinda ironic really. I may have to eventually adjust what determines their auto-withdrawal point in a special case consideration.

If nobody has any objections I'll do these today.

1. Agree.

2. So both fast AND stealthy?

3. Ok let see what the current movements are ...

Transports
Raft = 1
Canoe = 2
Tomol (Chumash UU) = 2
Galley = 4

War Ships
War Canoe = 1
War Galley = 2
Trireme = 2

Scout Ships
Kayak = 3
Outrigger = 3
Catamaran (Polynesian UU) = 3

From the looks of it I agree with you that it should be 2 and not 3.

4. Whatever you think is best for them since your siege stuff has changed how things work now.

 

[Thunderbrd]

2. So both fast AND stealthy?

Regarding the Felines:
*It takes a National Wonder (previously a world wonder and I'm not so sure that it was right to change it) to get them.
*On the core game their strength comes out the same as an ambusher. They are harder to get and come up later.
*On Size Matters they come up a little less in strength BUT they CAN merge - still don't think that's enough given how much later they're introduced. At their introduction, most core combat units are around str 4.
*They have the same strength, either way as comparable dogs.
*They can be seen by dogs
*They are far slower than ambushers who have 2 mv.
*Their promotion options are quite strong for attacking but reduce their withdrawal abilities and ability to capture units (they tend to kill and eat and not care if the enemy surrenders.)

So to give them +1 mv, able to ignore terrain, and a size matters category upgrade somewhere (I'm thinking Group Volume) and we'll make them a touch better than ambushers. Better when attacking. Usually a bit worse when defending. Unlike Ambushers, they're strongest developments will REDUCE their withdrawal and abilities to capture but they can more quickly become better attackers which is what I would usually WANT for my ambushers anyhow. Speed-wise they strike me as a unit that should be patrolling the wilderness for their master's benefit and RL great cats are able to get around in the worst terrains. Also consider that the best units to counter them with, Hunters, are also the types of units that are best targeted by the Ambusher so these cat units are an evolution past that into the realm of units that can strike at larger and more powerful groups with impunity if the dog's detection abilities aren't accompanying those groups. Thus, very good at striking merchants, small military forces, escorted workers and other units that can be found to take advantage of. Also makes them a great surprise defensive force when at war that can quickly respond to enemy raiders surging towards your borders away from the main fighting.

Unfortunately though, at the moment, they're next to worthless because they aren't strong enough nor fast enough to find any real solid use except against the weakest of unsuspecting defenders.



Dogs need the added movement to more fully embrace their role as a wrapup attacker against units that are otherwise strong at fleeing. And I also don't think dogs would be much hindered by terrain. Both animals, being quadripedal, are really excellent at maneuvering in wilderness environs, far moreso in more difficult terrain than we are. The major exception could be we could be better at some more extreme acts of climbing.

In short, these are just feelings I have as a player going through the game - that these adjustments would be of major benefit to the feel and balance in the roles all said units play.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Felines should require a World Wonder not a National Wonder.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Felines should require a World Wonder not a National Wonder.

All the more reason to make the units quite cool though not terrifyingly imbalanced.

EDIT: I decided on 75% maxcombat for the rams... I thought they were at 50% but turns out they're set to 25 right now and I think that leaves room to keep it at 75% to make it work better. Set to 90% there grows too great a potential for the rams to die as the higher this value the more committed to fight they become. So this is a matter of trying to strike an appropriate balance so they don't always become a one shot unit but do have enough impact to be able to almost always get the units into the city with enough of them brought to the battlefield.

I did figure out some interesting split/merge strategies to get rams to work the best for me though. Quite interesting indeed.