Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[GreatLordofPie]

Is there a way to edit maps to increase my chance of having an isolated start? Isolation feels comfy in this game.

You could use one of the map scripts with the "start in old world" option and WB yourself to the new world.

 

[VCrakeV]

Is there a way to edit maps to increase my chance of having an isolated start? Isolation feels comfy in this game.

I believe there is a map script (custom continents) that allows you to set the number of continents with some degree of freedom. One option allows you to set one continent per team (by default, every "player" has their own team). If I recall correctly, every team gets their own continent/island with this option. I'm personally not a fan, because I like to interact with other civs throughout the eras... but to each their own.


On an unrelated note (so I don't double post), any thoughts on vassals? I think the player guide recommends against them, with TB stating that s/he(?) finds it annoying when smaller civs capitulate to a bigger civ s/he is at war. This creates a domino effect, with more of the world capitulating to your war rival, putting you at war with everyone... but isn't this a good thing? It forces you to either go to war with everyone, or end wars once vassals make it to hard. This serves as a limit to expansion... the AI is basically ganging up on you, which is exactly what they should be doing if you are snowballing...

 

[Thunderbrd]

For me all that allows me to finish a war is the complete destruction of my enemy so this just forces me to snowball faster. I rarely 'got to peace' because I usually feel I need to wipe out their culture in my new cities.

 

[Prscyse]

Suggestions:

1. World Builder saves should record the year cities are founded and buildings are built.

Reason: I don't know if I'm the only one, but my games in Gigantic usually start crashing after a number of turns, so I need to use the World Builder to save the game and then create a new game using Custom Scenario. However, every time I do that, I notice the year of foundation or year a building was built is reset.


2. World Builder saves should record the city growth progress.

Reason: Same one as in previous suggestion.


3. World Builder saves should record the state of Great People.

Reason: Same one. This might be a bug. When a Great General has been converted into a Field Commander and you save a scenario, they're converted into Great Generals again when you start a new game.


4. World Builder should save trade information.

Reason: Same one. Every time I create a new custom scenario game, they just disappear. Sometimes I've even seen resources stop being available to trade or in possession of AIs for some unknown reason.


5. World Builder should save leader traits.

Reason: Same one. They just reset every time a create a new custom scenario game.


6. World Builder should save the turn number.

Reason: Same one. It just resets every time a create a new custom scenario game.

Maybe it wasn't necessary to organize the post this way. I just didn't want it to be a whole messy paragraph. Maybe it looks even messier now for some. I don't know. It's pretty much all focused on World Builder saves, clearly.

 

[Toffer90]

Lots of good suggestions.

 

[jediknightx]

i have a problem with that mod, any problem with runtime, please check the pic. any can help me !!!!!

 

[raxo2222]

i have a problem with that mod, any problem with runtime, please check the pic. any can help me !!!!!

Its crash.
Upload save and minidump in zip archive.

If this happens on game launch, then make sure mod isn't in my documents, and is named Caveman2Cosmos.
Did you get 3.19 patch for BTS?

If this won't work then reinstall game completely.

 

[VCrakeV]

In the pedia, the unit "Cataphract" is said (under "strategy:") to have more strength than a knight, but no immunity to first strikes. However, it has less strength (13 as opposed to 14), and still has no immunity to first strikes. The production cost for Cataphract is higher too.

On a similar note, "mailed knight" has same strength as knight (14), -30% city attack (knight gets no city attack penalty), and 50% strength flank against bombard. Everything else the mailed knight gets, the knight gets. On top of that, mailed knight requires more production.

Perhaps knight was intended to have 12 strength? That would make both the cataphract and mailed knight stronger than the knight.

 

[Thunderbrd]

In the pedia, the unit "Cataphract" is said (under "strategy:") to have more strength than a knight, but no immunity to first strikes. However, it has less strength (13 as opposed to 14), and still has no immunity to first strikes. The production cost for Cataphract is higher too.

On a similar note, "mailed knight" has same strength as knight (14), -30% city attack (knight gets no city attack penalty), and 50% strength flank against bombard. Everything else the mailed knight gets, the knight gets. On top of that, mailed knight requires more production.

Perhaps knight was intended to have 12 strength? That would make both the cataphract and mailed knight stronger than the knight.

All this is in the process of reevaluation and changes. The unit review I'm doing now will realign this stuff. Over time things have drifted and cultural units in particular rarely keep up with core unit updates, which is a big reason to just firmly analyze the whole setup on core units then go through and update all the cultural ones so that these kinds of inconsistencies are corrected once and for all.

 

[Joij21]

In the pedia, the unit "Cataphract" is said (under "strategy:") to have more strength than a knight, but no immunity to first strikes. However, it has less strength (13 as opposed to 14), and still has no immunity to first strikes. The production cost for Cataphract is higher too.

On a similar note, "mailed knight" has same strength as knight (14), -30% city attack (knight gets no city attack penalty), and 50% strength flank against bombard. Everything else the mailed knight gets, the knight gets. On top of that, mailed knight requires more production.

Perhaps knight was intended to have 12 strength? That would make both the cataphract and mailed knight stronger than the knight.

Yeah I also feel that the mailed knight should be the predecessor to the knight since the knight wears actual plate armor yet somehow the mod authors seem to have thought mail is stronger than plate. Also the term knight is too eurocentric for my taste and I would prefer them to be renamed mailed horseman and armored horseman respectively.

 

[Thunderbrd]

mail is stronger than plate

Mail IS plate, or rather plate is a type of mail. That said, the plan is to change the name of the Mailed Knight to Mailed Cavalry, indicating that it's just a heavily armored fighter that intends to stay on horseback while he fights, whereas knights somewhat expect to dismount and fight on foot after an initial clash. Knights, according to the plan (and I don't care at all whether it's eurocentric or not, it's just a name and anything you call it would be ethnocentric somewhere - it's clear not all units were bothered with by all cultures as it is) are part of the dismount line and can get defensive bonuses. This is due to the Templar connection where they were largely used as escorts on the European roadways. I realize that there's a major historical overlap there with crusaders perhaps but there's some distinction there somewhat.

Anyhow, Knights will remain as Dismount fighters that mostly use the horses to get from pt a to pt b and that allows them much heavier armor than most normal foot soldiers, whereas Mailed Cavalry are heavily armored fighters that try to remain fighting from horseback at all times. They will actually be unlocked at x47 where Knights come in at x48.

For some comparison in combat abilities you can find them in x47 and x48 here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...VoIGJPc0q0t9Y_LKgAo1xbFXk/edit#gid=1352941261

 

[Joij21]

OK but plate is not mail at all. Plate is superior to mail and full plate armor came about during the late midieval/early renaissance. So there should be a mailed knight, plate knight, mailed cavalry, and plate cavalry units respectively with the plated versions succeeding their mail predecessors.

 

[tmv]

That might be better to achieve with a promotion "Plate armor" for both types. The main difference should be that plate protects much better against arrows, but only somewhat better against melee weapons where chainmail really isn't bad as a protection.

 

[Thunderbrd]

OK but plate is not mail at all. Plate is superior to mail and full plate armor came about during the late midieval/early renaissance. So there should be a mailed knight, plate knight, mailed cavalry, and plate cavalry units respectively with the plated versions succeeding their mail predecessors.

I guess you've never heard it called Plate Mail, Field Plate Mail, Full Plate Mail. You might be referring to Chain Mail and restricting the term 'Mail' to Chain armor, but the reality is, Mail just means 'Armor'. Could mean 'metal armor' I suppose, considering it would be strange to say you were wearing Leather Mail.

That might be better to achieve with a promotion "Plate armor" for both types. The main difference should be that plate protects much better against arrows, but only somewhat better against melee weapons where chainmail really isn't bad as a protection.

We'll be getting into much greater detail when we get into the equipment mod.

 

[Joij21]

I guess you've never heard it called Plate Mail, Field Plate Mail, Full Plate Mail. You might be referring to Chain Mail and restricting the term 'Mail' to Chain armor, but the reality is, Mail just means 'Armor'. Could mean 'metal armor' I suppose, considering it would be strange to say you were wearing Leather Mail.

You mean mail and plate armour? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_plate_armour Its thin metal plate strips chained together with mail and not full plate armor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour Mail also does not mean armor etymologically speaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_mail#Etymology to quote the wiki:
The origins of the word mail are not fully known. One theory is that it originally derives from the Latin word macula, meaning spot or opacity (as in macula of retina). Another theory relates the word to the old French maillier, meaning to hammer (related to the modern English word malleable).[13] In modern French, maille refers to a loop or stitch.[14] The Arabic words "burnus", برنوس, a burnoose; a hooded cloak, also a chasuble (worn by Coptic priests) and "barnaza", برنز, to bronze, suggest an Arabic influence for the Carolingian armour known as "byrnie" (see below).

The first attestations of the word mail are in Old French and Anglo-Norman: maille, maile, or male or other variants, which became mailye, maille, maile, male, or meile in Middle English.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I guess you've never heard it called Plate Mail, Field Plate Mail, Full Plate Mail. You might be referring to Chain Mail and restricting the term 'Mail' to Chain armor, but the reality is, Mail just means 'Armor'. Could mean 'metal armor' I suppose, considering it would be strange to say you were wearing Leather Mail.

OK, thanks to the internet being a thing now (and not in my childhood when I was learning everything through inference in terminology alone along with 'meh' dictionaries) I've done some research into this at this prompting and have to correct myself.

Apparently,
"Sometimes chain mail is just called mail, from the Old French maille, "mesh.""
So the term 'mail' is really just referring to chain 'mesh' armor. Thus chain mail is an armor and plate mail is an armor BECAUSE it includes chain in the design. This is an interesting distinction I'll be sure to consider in the equipment mod. I always understood it as I originally stated in the quote here and yeah, ok, I'm wrong.

That said, to say a unit is a Mailed Cavalry is non-specific as to just how heavy that armor actually is isn't it? Or would you say that unless 'plate' is specifically added before the term 'mail' that it defaults to simply meaning chain-mailed? (EDIT: Some later found sources do assume this.)

Might have to change the naming so as to not be so specific just to "Heavily Armored Cavalry" or Plate Mailed Cavalry, or Plate Cavalry, since the assumption on that unit should be that it's in the heaviest armor it can get its hands on - even rivaling knights to the point that if they were dismounted they might not even be very capable of fighting on their feet as the weight is so burdensome. Full Plate Cavalry perhaps.

The Knight unit is assumed to be in something more plate mail oriented, perhaps as some call it field or half-plate. A bit more suited to melee fighting when dismounted.

The intended distinction is interestingly detailed here:
"The highly developed weight distribution that became possible with the era of Articulated Plate (What our Knights would tend to wear) was simply amazing. A warrior clad in a suit of properly made Articulated Plate would have been able to do cartwheels in his armour. Each plate balanced perfectly to a part of his body. This effectively dispels the myth of knights in armour falling off their horses and not being able to stand up. Such stories must have developed from certain examples of Tournament Plate Armour. Tournament Plate was specially designed to take the incredible impacts of jousting, so that it was very, very heavy. Such armour would have never been worn outside of a tournament environment. Again, it is important to compare the armour to the opposing arms and warfare techniques of when it was used."

The unit we're discussing would wear something closer to this heavier tournament plate as they aren't really intending to dismount to fight unless they are forced off.


Further research on the wikipedia pages you linked shows I wasn't entirely wrong either:
"After the fall of the Western Empire, much of the infrastructure needed to create plate armour diminished. Eventually the word "mail" came to be synonymous with armour"

No doubt that has led to a wide potential range of conclusions as to what the term means in terms of what it's defining that has led to a great deal of ambiguity. Thus my original presumption that 'Mailed Knight' was simply referring to a more heavily armored version of a knight wasn't far off track and potentially exactly what the original naming was intending.

 

[Joij21]

That said, to say a unit is a Mailed Cavalry is non-specific as to just how heavy that armor actually is isn't it? Or would you say that unless 'plate' is specifically added before the term 'mail' that it defaults to simply meaning chain-mailed?

Yes. Mailed should mean chainmail.

Might have to change the naming so as to not be so specific just to "Heavily Armored Cavalry" or Plate Mailed Cavalry, or Plate Cavalry, since the assumption on that unit should be that it's in the heaviest armor it can get its hands on - even rivaling knights to the point that if they were dismounted they might not even be very capable of fighting on their feet as the weight is so burdensome. Full Plate Cavalry perhaps.

You can still fight dismounted even with full plate armor and in fact historically it was done quite often. Plate armor isn't that thick and is usually around 1mm in thickness on average. Now it might be more cumbersome than say someone with lighter armor and you would also have a lack of visibility due to the helmet, hence why it was so quickly abandoned after firearms made it obsolete.

The Knight unit is assumed to be in something more plate mail oriented, perhaps as some call it field or half-plate. A bit more suited to melee fighting when dismounted.

I usually make the determination as to what type of armor a unit is wearing based on it's generic unit art. To me the knight is wearing full plate. However if you look at the Middle Eastern and Eastern European variants you will see they are in fact wearing mail and plate which is quite historically correct as only Western Europeans developed full plate.

 

[Thunderbrd]

You can still fight dismounted even with full plate armor and in fact historically it was done quite often. Plate armor isn't that thick and is usually around 1mm in thickness on average. Now it might be more cumbersome than say someone with lighter armor and you would also have a lack of visibility due to the helmet, hence why it was so quickly abandoned after firearms made it obsolete.

True but generally speaking, according to the unit upgrade chain concept, the differentiation between the knight and this unit will be the intent to dismount to fight vs the intent to stay mounted to fight. They may even wear similar armors but the difference in intent should adjust the consideration as to how those armors are arranged.

I usually make the determination as to what type of armor a unit is wearing based on it's generic unit art. To me the knight is wearing full plate. However if you look at the Middle Eastern and Eastern European variants you will see they are in fact wearing mail and plate which is quite historically correct as only Western Europeans developed full plate.

It's possible that some of the arts on these units will be adjusted for better clarity.

Yes. Mailed should mean chainmail.

Well then we can't keep calling the unit 'mailed' since that's an ambiguity that certainly isn't intentional here. You suggested 'Plate Cavalry' and that sounds about right.

 

[Joij21]

The unit we're discussing would wear something closer to this heavier tournament plate as they aren't really intending to dismount to fight unless they are forced off.

Except they never wore that type of armor in an actual battle. With that being said I think your looking for a non-dismountable to exist at the same time as the knight. In fact there were dedicated cavalry units at that time that didn't dismount and they were horse archers. You could simply make a heavy horse archer for that era.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Except they never wore that type of armor in an actual battle. With that being said I think your looking for a non-dismountable to exist at the same time as the knight. In fact there were dedicated cavalry units at that time that didn't dismount and they were horse archers. You could simply make a heavy horse archer for that era.

Horse archers are a whole different line entirely. There were also units that fought hand to hand from horseback. I realize knights classically did that too but the term here has evolved from the dismounting line that mostly just uses the mounts to get from one place to another to avoid exhaustion and increase maneuverability.

I may well decide to make a heavier horse archer though... that might be interesting.

EDIT: I probably won't right away but I do see a good point(s) for such a unit to be added, perhaps even 2 versions, one for the longbow and one for the heavy crossbow. They could granulate the upgrade tree a bit.

Question: Should the dismounting fighter, rather than being the Knight, be named Heavy Mounted Infantry? (We already have Light then Medium before this point) And then just make the Plate Cavalry instead Knights? There would be a small change in Unitcombats to accommodate that adjustment but I'm thinking that might flow a little better with the classic concept of the knight.

Yeah, that's going to take a bit of reworking a few things here but I was looking at this today anyhow...

EDIT AGAIN: This actually corrects a few other issues here so that's pretty cool.