I'm guessing not, but is there any way to limit a Unit's movement to RR Tiles? - For armored trains & the like.
Ozy, the Flintlock mod since a longer time allows to limit railroad movement in general (not for individual units):is there any way to limit a Unit's movement to RR Tiles? - For armored trains & the like.
What he means is, make it so certain units can only move along railroads. Like 'Wheeled', but all terrain is impassable.Ozy, the Flintlock mod since a longer time allows to limit railroad movement in general (not for individual units):
What he means is, make it so certain units can only move along railroads. Like 'Wheeled', but all terrain is impassable.
It's a nifty idea, though I have no clue if the AI will be able to handle it.![]()
Yes, but I'd still like armored trainsOzy, the Flintlock mod since a longer time allows to limit railroad movement in general (not for individual units):
View attachment 680087
The argument is, that when transported by a train, all units have the same movement of the train.
The Germans in World War 2 used flak trains in Russia and Eastern Europe to quickly move anti-aircraft assets along the front and to protect lines of communication. They typically carried quad 20mm mounts, 37mm anti-aircraft guns, and sometimes a battery of 88mm guns.Yes, but I'd still like armored trains![]()
The Germans in World War 2 used flak trains in Russia and Eastern Europe to quickly move anti-aircraft assets along the front and to protect lines of communication. They typically carried quad 20mm mounts, 37mm anti-aircraft guns, and sometimes a battery of 88mm guns.
I would need to be able to run the saves between turns to measure where the game is spending its time processing. The save files alone are of no use to me. It's fine since this isn't something I'm planning to do soon anyway, in a few months maybe. Do you know when the next version of CCM will be ready?So it is the question, if these save files are of any use for you without the main files of that tested prototype version of the next CCM.
Unfortunately not, there's not much I need from the text files. Almost all the searching I do is inside the EXE.Question for Mr. Flintlock: Is there way to help you search for things? Like is there a simple text file we can read through to try to spot something of interest?
Please keep in mind I know absolutely nothing about coding, so I could be pretty useless, but just wondering.
Limiting movement is relatively easy on its own. I've already done a similar thing to limit trespassing. The hard part is dealing with the various potential side effects of that change. For example limiting trespassing created a situation similar to the disembark immobile bug that could freeze the game. Limiting certain units to railroads could cause problems with the AI, or maybe not, it could be an easy little change. It's impossible to say without trying.I'm guessing not, but is there any way to limit a Unit's movement to RR Tiles? - For armored trains & the like.
I think, this is an interesting solution.I put icons for the generated resources over top of the building icons like I mentioned previously. That too looks okay for one, maybe two, generated resources, but with three or more it quickly becomes a mess.
Normally my internal deadline for my epic mods is Christmas - what will be in two days.Do you know when the next version of CCM will be ready?
Resources can also generate negative values. Have you tested the functionality of such a case and will they display similarly to corrupted production and commerce or consumed food?Update on generated resources adding yields: I'm still not done testing that it all works under the hood, but I did take the time to modify the interface both to show yields and resources.
Obsolete buildings aren't supposed to produce resources but I don't think that's properly updated right now, in other words they'll continue producing until something else triggers a recomputation of resource access. I'll fix this soon.Looking good. With regards to the yields, how does it work in relation to an improvement/wonder becoming obsolete? Would that also remove the resources from them?
Glad to hear it. I'm planning to post a second preview version of R17 hopefully before Christmas but maybe shortly afterward. I've been wanting to do that for weeks but Christmas really snuck up on me this year. And yeah, you're right that I shouldn't worry so much about testing the preview versions. The original idea was that they would be posted frequently with only basic testing but I still tend to think of them like full versions.The last test game was played with the R17-Preview1 version of your great mod. All settings of your mod concerning the game play in CCM worked well. May be it could be a good idea to upload a R17-Preview2 version, that includes the interesting icon solution for resource providing buildings, so that interested modders can test that option too, and you have not to test this all alone.
The hyperlink bug is a tough one. Right now C3X simply suppresses the popup messages about the hyperlink limit but it doesn't fix the crash that occurs when you have too many hyperlinks. Fixing the crash would be relatively difficult. This is yet another case where the game uses a statically allocated array, and this time for no good reason that I can see. Some of the other arrays you could argue are for performance, but in this case it's part of the interface logic so the performance impact of dynamically allocated an array would be completely irrelevant. Anyway, last time I looked into this I didn't see any easy way to change it, which is not to say it would be impossible, just difficult.Some general observations from my CCM test games with the R17-Preview1 version (concerning not only the additions of that preview version):
Thanks for mentioning negative resource yields, I hadn't thought about that. Handling negative yields would be easy in terms of code, the trouble (admittedly a minor trouble) is that there are no icons already for them. I would have to make some. To show resource yields on buildings, I'm using the small food & shield icons from "Art\city screen\CityIcons.pcx". There is a small negative commerce icon used to indicate maintenance but there are no small negative shield or food icons, and of course no negative culture icon. Modifying the code to show unhappy faces and negative culture should be easy. I'll try to get this stuff done soon but maybe not in time for R17 Preview 2.Resources can also generate negative values. Have you tested the functionality of such a case and will they display similarly to corrupted production and commerce or consumed food?
There's another related issue that I'm not sure has been mentioned. Happy faces and positive culture are displayed correctly in the city screen for buildings, but buildings giving unhappy faces or negative culture are not. Is it possible to resolve this since you are already addressing a similar display issue?
Real land artillery is the normal land artillery with the artillery strategy. In comparison to the units with the artillery strategy is the setting of artillery units in CCM in a combination of normal attack, stealth attack, special movement settings with an offensive strategy setting instead of an artillery strategy setting - and these units are autoproduced by a building. The advantage is, that the AI civs seem to build up more units with an offensive strategy and these offensive units can do the decisive attack to finish a weakened enemy stack by bombardment (if you don´t want to give the normal artillery the lethal bombardment flag). What is the sense if the AI is bombarding dozens of units in a stack until they are red-lined, if there are no normal attackers to take out all these red-lined units in the game ?I'm not sure what you mean by "real" land artillery.
These were sea battles by bigger stacks of CCM Commerce Raiders (HN units, can enslave, lethal sea bombardment) against smaller stacks of enemy ships (no submarines in it). When the stack of the Commerce Raiders had sunk all ships of the enemy stack by lethal bombardment, the stack of the Commerce Raiders continued the stack bombardment in that battle by firing salvo after salvo into the now empty sea tile. At the end of the battle all Commerce Raiders in the stack had lost their bombardment potential, so many of them only fired into the empty sea.Thanks for the bug report about stack bombard, I'll look into that. Can you say any more about the circumstances there? Is it possible the stack bombard was trying to attack a submarine and couldn't?
We also have the problem of the AI thinking if an artillery unit has lost its original defender, it would be exposed and needs to retreat regardless of the remaining units on the tile. So if you kill off a defender in an AI SOD you will see an artillery unit exposing itself from the big stack to retreat the next turn, making it easy picking for 3 movers or lethal bombard.
I could try removing the escort requirement from artillery units. It might be very easy but I'm not sure the simple change I have in mind would work. It does work for naval transports, so that's promising. But looking at the logic for offensive & defensive units I think they might try to escort artillery units anyway. Of course I could also modify that too. It would just take more work.Sometimes I am wondering, if it wouldn´t be better, if the real land artillery would be escorted by offensive units (and modders could give these offensive units even acceptable defensive values, too), or if the normal land artillery wouldn´t need any escort and the modders add the defensive value of the escorting unit to the defense value of the normal land artillery.
I wasn't able to reproduce this bug but I think I know what happened. When attacking units, the stack bombard logic first assembles a list of targets on the chosen tile, then it continues bombarding until none of the targets can be damaged either because they're dead or redlined without lethal bombard. The list stores unit IDs which works assuming that no units are created during the stack bombard operation. If units get destroyed, that's fine since their IDs will refer to nothing and the mod checks for that. However if a unit is created during SB then it might get assigned the same ID as a previously destroyed one, and then the SB logic will continue attacking the tile trying to damage it. So the problem is the unusual combination of lethal bombard and the enslave ability. It's an easy fix, just need to check that the targets are on the tile being attacked.These were sea battles by bigger stacks of CCM Commerce Raiders (HN units, can enslave, lethal sea bombardment) against smaller stacks of enemy ships (no submarines in it). When the stack of the Commerce Raiders had sunk all ships of the enemy stack by lethal bombardment, the stack of the Commerce Raiders continued the stack bombardment in that battle by firing salvo after salvo into the now empty sea tile. At the end of the battle all Commerce Raiders in the stack had lost their bombardment potential, so many of them only fired into the empty sea.
Real land artillery is the normal land artillery with the artillery strategy. In comparison to the units with the artillery strategy is the setting of artillery units in CCM in a combination of normal attack, stealth attack, special movement settings with an offensive strategy setting instead of an artillery strategy setting - and these units are autoproduced by a building. The advantage is, that the AI civs seem to build up more units with an offensive strategy and these offensive units can do the decisive attack to finish a weakened enemy stack by bombardment (if you don´t want to give the normal artillery the lethal bombardment flag). What is the sense if the AI is bombarding dozens of units in a stack until they are red-lined, if there are no normal attackers to take out all these red-lined units in the game ?
Sometimes I am wondering, if it wouldn´t be better, if the real land artillery would be escorted by offensive units (and modders could give these offensive units even acceptable defensive values, too), or if the normal land artillery wouldn´t need any escort and the modders add the defensive value of the escorting unit to the defense value of the normal land artillery.
Would it be possible to let modders decide whether an individual unit needs an escort or not, by strictly enforcing the flag in the Editor? So you can turn off escort requirements for some units, but leave it on for others? There's a flag called "Requires Escort" under the Unit Abilities list on every unit page. If "Requires Escort" were enabled for a unit, the AI should try to protect it, with a number of escorters as set by the current rules. If the flag was left untouched (off), no attempt would be made to escort that particular unit, regardless of what type of unit it happens to be. As if the number of escorters were set to zero. But of course, artillery units would need to be "brave" enough to move out on their own if they did not require any escorts.I could try removing the escort requirement from artillery units. It might be very easy but I'm not sure the simple change I have in mind would work. It does work for naval transports, so that's promising. But looking at the logic for offensive & defensive units I think they might try to escort artillery units anyway. Of course I could also modify that too. It would just take more work.