Civilization Tactical Combat Development Thread (Input/Suggestions Wanted)

[AIAndy]

Wouldn't it be possible to reserve map space north of the north pole or south of the south pole for battle maps (and disallow wrapping around there)?
I am not sure how the Civ engine would react to extending the map size while playing (although that might be possible as well) but it should be easy enough to change some map scripts to leave space (as e.g. a special unpassable terrain type).

Then you can carve out some battle maps from that territory whenever you need them, still surrounded by unpassable terrain so the battle participants can't escape.
I'd also suggest to use two phases. One the normal one on the big map, then when that is finished, take all movement points from the normal units so players can't move them and spawn the battle participants on the battle maps (depending on which units initiated a battle in the normal turn on the normal map).

 

[LyTning94]

Wouldn't it be possible to reserve map space north of the north pole or south of the south pole for battle maps (and disallow wrapping around there)?
I am not sure how the Civ engine would react to extending the map size while playing (although that might be possible as well) but it should be easy enough to change some map scripts to leave space (as e.g. a special unpassable terrain type).

Then you can carve out some battle maps from that territory whenever you need them, still surrounded by unpassable terrain so the battle participants can't escape.

I don't really know if this would work or not, but there's several reasons why I decided not to do it like this. First, it wouldn't look very good ; second, I'm willing to deal with the saving/loading time in return for what I consider to be a better solution; and third, it wouldn't work anyway because you need to have several turns in the battle map taking place within one turn in the strategic map.

I'd also suggest to use two phases. One the normal one on the big map, then when that is finished, take all movement points from the normal units so players can't move them and spawn the battle participants on the battle maps (depending on which units initiated a battle in the normal turn on the normal map).

I'm not sure what you mean by this...can you clarify???

 

[AIAndy]

I don't really know if this would work or not, but there's several reasons why I decided not to do it like this. First, it wouldn't look very good ; second, I'm willing to deal with the saving/loading time in return for what I consider to be a better solution; and third, it wouldn't work anyway because you need to have several turns in the battle map taking place within one turn in the strategic map.

The disadvantage to the saving/loading is that it will likely not work in multiplayer while the approach with multiple battle arenas in a special area on the map would work.

It could work like this:
- Normal turn starts
- Phase 1 is for unit movement and attacks on the normal map
- After the end of phase 1 all units are reduced to 0 movement points
- Now all tactical battles and their participants are determined
- Phase 2 consists of several subturns in which only the tactical battle units get back their moves and nothing else happens
- End of turn

Advantages:
- Works with simultaneous turns, especially for multiplayer
- Multiple battles can be fought in parallel
- You can still manage your cities if you have no battle to fight while the battles are taking place
- The save game does not need to be loaded after every battle which saves time

Disadvantages:
- Looks
- Might confuse the AI, but it is likely that new AI code has to be written anyway

 

[LyTning94]

There are other reasons why this wouldn't work. Not only would you have to "freeze" all the units each turn, but you would also have to stop research, stop production, etc. Since each battle takes place within one normal game turn you would have to "freeze" everything in the game not pertaining to that battle.

This definitely would present an advantage to multiplayer, but due to the fact that I've already planned and started doing it the other way as well as the other problems mentioned above, I'll keep it the same way as originally planned.

After I release the mod, however, you or someone else are welcome to modmod it to make it multiplayer compatible using this or some other method. I apologize for not making my mod multiplayer to begin with, but I never play multiplayer so I didn't bother to mess with it.

 

[AIAndy]

There are other reasons why this wouldn't work. Not only would you have to "freeze" all the units each turn, but you would also have to stop research, stop production, etc. Since each battle takes place within one normal game turn you would have to "freeze" everything in the game not pertaining to that battle.

If you never advance the normal turns but instead have your own mini turn code that only resets movement on the units there is no need to freeze most functionality as it would not progress or be usable anyway.

 

[LyTning94]

If you never advance the normal turns but instead have your own mini turn code that only resets movement on the units there is no need to freeze most functionality as it would not progress or be usable anyway.

Maybe this is something you could play with after I release the mod.

 

[LyTning94]

I have the morale coding done, but I still probably need to play around with the numbers a little bit to make it accurate. Here's what I have right now (see footnotes for more details on certain items):

• Morale value: min 0, max 100, starts at 50
• -40 for anarchy
• +/-(avg. attitude * 3) for foreign reputation*
• -20 for Pacifism
• +/-(net war success / 2)**
• -(war weariness)
• +15 for Theocracy (if fighting civ of another religion)
• +/-(net happiness * 5) in unit's home city***
• -(enemy culture% / 3) in unit's' home city

Hopefully you can understand it. I'm putting this out here to get some opinions on the numbers. Are some things weighted too much or not enough? I'm hoping to gather some opinions and then refine it (if necessary). I'm also going to play at least part of a game to see how accurate they are.

I don't have the modifier for generals because I haven't created the unit yet. I also still have to get the in-battle modifiers worked out (I'll get to them later on).

*avg. attitude: average attitude of all foreign leaders toward yourself
**net war success: your war success against them - their war success against you
***net happiness: total happiness - total unhappiness

 

[4lexander]

I think you did a great job sir.


May I suggest to stress the theocracy bonus a little bit?

It' not I'm going to use this specific strategy - actually I usually don't - but I still think for realism's sake civs that choose that path can achieve the full advantages of such a policy in the battlefield other than in strategic map.

I would fell satisfied with just a round 20% but I' m aware it could get overpowered.


Intense testing is required to detect any unbalance, playing a considerable time with different strategies.


Anyway great work really

Alexander

 

[LyTning94]

After giving it a little more thought I agree that the Theocracy bonus should be increased a little bit to 20. The reason I had it at 15 before was because I didn't think the bonus should equal the penalty of Pacifism (-20). So to fix this problem, I'm increasing Pacifism's penalty to -25.

I'm also going to add all these modifiers as XML values so if you feel one modifier is weighted too much or too little you can easily change it without having to rebuild the DLL.

 

[4lexander]

After giving it a little more thought I agree that the Theocracy bonus should be increased a little bit to 20. The reason I had it at 15 before was because I didn't think the bonus should equal the penalty of Pacifism (-20). So to fix this problem, I'm increasing Pacifism's penalty to -25.

Excellent Happy to see my feedback is appreciated. I share your idea on the penalty, too, it could even be few.

I'm also going to add all these modifiers as XML values so if you feel one modifier is weighted too much or too little you can easily change it without having to rebuild the DLL.

This is a wonderful idea. I can get "my" game to be like my heart's content.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

Very nice that you are embarking on this project

Did you manage to implement the tactical combat map?

 

[LyTning94]

Did you manage to implement the tactical combat map?

Not yet, but I'm working on it (as with everything else). I could probably win the award for the slowest modder in history, so who knows when I'll actually finish this mod. Probably around the release of Civilization XVII .

 

[Androrc the Orc]

Not yet, but I'm working on it (as with everything else). I could probably win the award for the slowest modder in history, so who knows when I'll actually finish this mod. Probably around the release of Civilization XVII .

We all have other things going on, so it's important to take your time when modding

In any case, did you verify whether it is actually possible to have the alternate maps?

 

[LyTning94]

I haven't actually done it yet, but I don't really see any way it couldn't work. All I'm doing is loading a new game and then reconstructing the necessary terrain, units, etc., so it's pretty simple. How the AI will respond to it, though, is a different question.

 

[LyTning94]

FYI, I updated the original post with some more info about the mod's features and where I'm at in the mod right now. I don't want to repeat it all here, so you can check it out if you want.

 

[magzhi]

The last option will let the user decide if he wants to bother fighting small-scale battles on the battle map or just to resolve them in the strategic map.

I think that when you will finish it you should make resolving in the strategic map available only if the armies are smaller than 6 units combined. Also I think that you need to make ai vs ai battles automatically resolve in strategic view

 

[4lexander]

I share last part of the sentence: involving AIs into the new system could be very difficult.

About auto-resolving, I would leave full choice disregard of the number of units, as it is in Total War series.

So long people can install this component and choose whenever to use it in any game even with other mods.


Let me know if this is possible - I would like very much to play FFH with a tactical map too.

 

[LyTning94]

AI vs AI battles will all be resolved in the strategic map. Since I'm probably going to run into problems teaching the AI how to use the tactical map, it wouldn't make sense to have the AI use it against each other.

Right now I have it set up so that regardless of the number of units in the battle, if you have the option enabled, it asks you if you want to fight on a tactical map. I don't see any reason to change this and provide a maximum number of units in a strategic map battle.

@4lexander
I'm using the BUG configuration method, so the configuration shouldn't be an issue with any mod using BUG. Merging this mod with FFH might be harder though, because I'm basing the mod off of RevDCM which is pretty extensive. I'm also going to try and merge the K-Mod into it to provide better AI and performance.

 

[4lexander]

I share all of your decisions.

Just a bit of delusion regarding the difficulty of FFH integration... is there a possibility one day?

Thanks for the great job you're doing with this project.

 

[LyTning94]

Just a bit of delusion regarding the difficulty of FFH integration... is there a possibility one day?

I have never even played FFH, so at this point I have no plans to merge the two mods. When I release this mod, though, I'll release the source code with it, so you or someone else could merge the mods if they wanted.