Caveman 2 Cosmos

Sparth said:
Do City Strenght modificator is count only in defense?
Click to expand...

What, the ones the city produces for its units by type depending on the buildings it has? That's actually a good question but I THINK the answer would be yes because I believe the plot where battle takes place is evaluated and in that evaluation only a defense could get the benefit (unless I suppose the programmer forgot to make sure only units of the same player or team could gain the benefit in which case attackers might be incidentally able to take advantage of the bonus too - but I don't think they overlooked this.)

This is based on weak memory and suspicion and I'd have to investigate the code directly for any further accurate an answer.
 
And two more things:
- its possible to add combat bonus for fighting in land improvment? For example Peasant Militia got Farm Defense bonus.

- its possible to make some units atackable by only some type of units? For example Helicopters cannot be attacked by melee (helicopters still can attack melee units normally).
 
Sparth said:
And two more things:
- its possible to add combat bonus for fighting in land improvment? For example Peasant Militia got Farm Defense bonus.

- its possible to make some units atackable by only some type of units? For example Helicopters cannot be attacked by melee (helicopters still can attack melee units normally).
Click to expand...

1) Not yet... I've got that tag on my list of tags to develop though.

2) No. And that would be really tough to develop at the moment given how the basic dll rule is "if you can see it and its an enemy and you can move a unit that can attack (which is a very simply yes/no statement) into that space, you can attack it".

Changing this is complex and has a lot of potential problems any way you attempt it. If you change the 'canattack' to an evaluation of the unit it's attacking, you'd have a hard time with stack complexities (if the helicopter had infantry on the stack too... does that mean your infantry can't attack the stack at all or if it attacks, it can only attack the infantry) and with moving onto the space thereafter - would it mean that you can't move onto the plot because the helicopter is there or you can but you'd be sharing spaces with the enemy unit that can then attack you which is another situation the dll tries to avoid in most cases.

Anyhow, point being its a complex web. I do plan to manipulate that web in some greater depth down the road and may in fact be able to achieve this sort of interaction eventually though I intend it more for whether units can see each other independently or not, allowing for sneak attacks to take place on the same plot, etc... However, the more immediate plans to address this kind of interaction is as follows:

Currently the first stage has been implemented (though isn't working quite as intended so must be debugged) which is that if a unit has a unitcombat that indicates it Flies to Move (including flying birds, helicopters and balloons) then that unit cannot have any pursuit values applied against it if it attempts withdrawal unless the opponent ALSO Flies to Move. This should only work if both the Fight or Flight AND Size Matters option are in play due to balance problems with this dynamic otherwise.

Again, since that's not working yet I've gotta check out why.

The second stage of development towards a rational mechanism to address this kind of combat interaction will take place in the Hand to Hand vs Distance fighting mechanism that will be developed once Fight or Flight and Size Matters are fully complete.

At this point, a unit like a Melee unit sure can attack that Helicopter but it may NEVER be able to harm the chopper, leading to a pretty much automatic failure in combat for the hapless melee attacker. The melee unit had better be backed up by a distance fighter in his stack (as he'll be inheriting the distance attack skills of the best distance fighter in the plot from which he's attacking or defending from) because he'll never be able to close with the chopper so he can get in any Hand to Hand attacks.

This system will be fairly complex, too much to go into full detail on here but this at least gives you a concept of where I'm headed there. Hand 2 Hand fighting takes place only once the units have engaged each other at that range. Each round, units that REALLY prefer H2H combat will be moving forward to engage the enemy in this manner and they are taking potential distance fire as they approach but are also potentially backed up by the distance fighter behind them. I'll get into more detail on that later when I really start getting into further development on that project.

And of course, it'll be optional for folks like me who prefer to have a more logical combat system.
 
Ok. Glad to see that its complex but its not impossible. Maybe in future :)

Last one:
- its possible to make rising gold unit upkeep depend on distance from your civilization nearest city (or cultural border plot)? This is could be helpful to stop global campaigns in early stage of game. In future eras techs like logistics can lower this upkeep.
 
It's called Distance to Capital Upkeep - that's supposed to help with this and its possible it's not implemented strong enough at the moment. Adding another type of upkeep like that would be somewhat redundant to the purpose of the first one and it would be a little tough for me to do since I'm not so good with calling for map measurements yet.

Civics are probably the main determining factor in Distance to Capital but I can't say I'm fully versed on how the equation works out. I know I manipulated it in terms of modifiers I added to Traits but that was cloned across from Civic mechanisms and ties into most of the pre-existing programming that was already in place for that so I didn't have to fully evaluate the whole equation to see exactly how it impacts things to add that Trait tag.
 
Greetings!

I've got a quick question. Just researched "Motion Pictures" tech, however, when I noticed that I couldn't build Red Curtains (though I had an officium in the city and also Broadway and Hollywood). Then I double-checked everything and understood that I had the "Modern Corporations" checkbox ticked off all along. Is there any way to turn this option on (I didn't find any cues in BUG screen, but maybe there are some work-arounds) - or do I need to start a new game with this option on?

Thanks:)
 
jiallombardo said:
Greetings!

I've got a quick question. Just researched "Motion Pictures" tech, however, when I noticed that I couldn't build Red Curtains (though I had an officium in the city and also Broadway and Hollywood). Then I double-checked everything and understood that I had the "Modern Corporations" checkbox ticked off all along. Is there any way to turn this option on (I didn't find any cues in BUG screen, but maybe there are some work-arounds) - or do I need to start a new game with this option on?

Thanks:)
Click to expand...

You can turn it on in WorldBuilder. Although it takes more memory than normal play. It is suggested you save, exit civ, restart it load your save and then enter world builder before doing anything else; as this will reduce the chance of a memory allocation error. If you get a memory error you will need to start a new game.
 
Thanks, that worked like a charm :) (didn't even have to restart Civ)

By the way, the game really slows down when hovering over large unit stacks (specially workers of any type). I have animations frozen and effects disabled to speed up gameplay; however, worker stacks allways display this behaviour. Is this curable?
 
jiallombardo said:
Thanks, that worked like a charm :) (didn't even have to restart Civ)

By the way, the game really slows down when hovering over large unit stacks (specially workers of any type). I have animations frozen and effects disabled to speed up gameplay; however, worker stacks allways display this behaviour. Is this curable?
Click to expand...

Might work a little better once I've cleaned up the plot help hover which is a pre v34 release task on the agenda.
 
Thanks for the reply;

And one more question (sorry, they just piled up after playing C2C for a while) - were the nuclear meltdown dynamics tweaked? When I played C2C a couple of releases before, I had a meltdown after building a Nuclear Ship (I think it was a littoral combat ship or something). And afterwards I avoided building Nuclear Ships, Nuclear Plants and Utility Fogs (they have a meltdown probability of 1000 according to the XML).

So my question is - was something reworked or do the chances of meltdown remain as in the vanilla Civ (i.e. incredibly high)? Do wonders get destroyed? Do special religious buildings (i.e. The Church of the Nativity) get destroyed (they are regular buildings, not wonders) ? Do "special buildings" (like herds or bonuses) get destroyed?

Thanks :)
 
Whats the current thought on the superfort module? I personally feel like it really imbalances the fort improvement, plus one can no longer put 2 forts adjacent to each other to act as a canal. IMHO this was a stupid attempt by Civ V to make an otherwise weak GG have some lasting utility.

Also, did superforts totally replace the earlier civic-specific ability for a unit to claim a tile? If so, i think thats uncool, since its not a stone building that can assert your empire's will ,rather its the people in it.

Related question: canals; how come aren't they aren't? AI issue?

Now excuse me while I perish in flames :c5razing:
 
timschuett said:
Whats the current thought on the superfort module? I personally feel like it really imbalances the fort improvement, plus one can no longer put 2 forts adjacent to each other to act as a canal. IMHO this was a stupid attempt by Civ V to make an otherwise weak GG have some lasting utility.

Also, did superforts totally replace the earlier civic-specific ability for a unit to claim a tile? If so, i think thats uncool, since its not a stone building that can assert your empire's will ,rather its the people in it.

Related question: canals; how come aren't they aren't? AI issue?

Now excuse me while I perish in flames :c5razing:
Click to expand...

I am very seriously thinking of removing them from c2C. Their two main features were
1) to upgrade when a unit is fortified in them but it takes longer to upgrade than it does to destroy and build the upgrade unless I set the time for upgrade to zero.

2) claim territory outside your border.​

Unfortunately we lost
1) the ability to capture forts and make them your own

2) Civ IV canals​

the losses far outweigh the gains in my opinion.

Claiming territory with units is still available but you need closed borders to use it. I also disagree with this but then I was never happy with the borders civic since it was designed for the "start as minors" which never made sense to me either.

Many people have tried to implement canals in Civ IV. The Strategic Rivers mod is probably the only one to come close to allowing them.
 
It strikes me that we can keep the gains while addressing the other issues independently. AKA, why not create a canal improvement rather than having forts oddly fill this position? And I don't THINK the capturing of forts would be difficult to fix but I'd really have to take a look.
 
Thunderbrd said:
It strikes me that we can keep the gains while addressing the other issues independently. AKA, why not create a canal improvement rather than having forts oddly fill this position? And I don't THINK the capturing of forts would be difficult to fix but I'd really have to take a look.
Click to expand...

Fix the capture issue would go a long way to making this useful. For example if I changed the XML tag bActsAsCity on the new forts to true will this fix the problem of capture?

Canals, canals, canals - no one has manage to get these to work. They are basically a route on land for ships. The two fort thing was probably emergent rather than programed for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Caveman to cosmos relegion bug
Replies
3
Views
978
jshetley
J
AbuHab
My units becoming invisible
Replies
2
Views
409
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
B
Installing a mod
Replies
11
Views
2K
raxo2222
raxo2222
S
[MOD] Just a list of what I think C2C going stand-alone MAY pay at least some attention to.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Osk21
Osk21
M
Modding Question
Replies
1
Views
615
Osk21
Osk21
Back
Top Bottom