CiVUP - CiV Unofficial Patch

[Thalassicus]

The Iroquois trait bug annoys me too, what I ended up doing in the leaders mod is add the "woodsman" promotion to melee units for Hiawatha (same mechanic as Washington's scouting promotion). It sort of compensates for the buggy trait.

To remove maintenance on forests I'd do:

• ALTER TABLE Traits ADD NoMaintenanceForests boolean default false;
  (in a sql file loaded before anything that uses it)
• Add this new stat to the Iroquois trait.
• At the start of the player's turn, loop through all players to check for the trait, then loop through forests in friendly territory, check if an improvement requiring maintenance is there, and if so, add -1*maintenance to the player's gold supply (adjusted for policies).
• Recalculate tech deficit due to gold deficit if it exists, and if necessary add to beakers as well.
• Update all UI elements displaying maintenance or beakers to consider the NoMaintenanceForests effect.

These are basically the steps I took for the Krepost fix, just different parts of the game and UI. It took me about a day to figure out everything the first time I added a stat (made easier by looking at similar mods that do so), but once that was done only took about an hour to add another.

 

[civcivv]

Yes, I am enjoying the temporary fix from your Leader's mod since quite a while

In terms of adding the new forest maintence stat, how resource intensive would it be considering it runs every turn? Also consider that eventually you'll have railroads so you need even more blocks of code to handle the maintenance calculation. Then also consider that some people (like myself) mod policies a bit, so the maintenance reduction will not be the same for everyone. I imagine on a huge map where you build lots of roads and railroads through forests, this might take a fair bit of processing power.

 

[Thalassicus]

Lua scripts run in a fraction of a second, it's not a big deal. I think most processing involves AI movement of units. Also, depending on how frequently you have autosaves set up those are the biggest chunk of time for me, taking several full seconds.

 

[Ahriman]

I forget, what does the woodsman promotion do?
If its the same as the thing that the Mohawk warrior starts with, then I think this is a poor solution.
The Mohawk warrior is a UU; it has particular abilities of being stronger in forest/jungle, and that can be passed on to other units through promotion.
Giving other melee units the same ability makes the mohawk less special.

Instead, I would try to adjust the core ability so that it is like that of the Incas; no terrain penalty for moving in forests *anywhere*, not just the "treat as roads" within cultural borders.
It would also be very cool if there was a way to modify civ-specific tile acquisition, so that incas would favor acquiring hill tiles and Iroquois would favor acquiring forest tiles.

 

[Thalassicus]

The Mohawk starts with a +50% in forest/jungle promotion called "Mohawk." Woodsman allows normal movement speed in forests and jungle, what you're thinking of in the second paragraph. The reason woodsman is a confusing promotion is it was mistakenly listed under the nonexistant 'terrain' promotion category in the civilopedia, so no one ever saw it. I moved it to the proper 'melee' category in the beta, where you should be able to see it now.

I first gave the Mohawk Warrior woodsman too, then moved it to all Iroquois melee/gun units as a general buff. Basically the Iroquois do have the Inca's trait, though right now only for melee/gun because those are the unit classes capable of getting the Woodsman promotion. I thought about possibly giving it to melee/archer... but that'd be a significant buff for Iroquois chariot archers, not sure if it'd work out too well.

Civ-specific tile purchase rates would be rather cool, but it's a global variable so I don't think it'd be feasible at the present time.

 

[Ahriman]

The Mohawk starts with a +50% in forest/jungle promotion called "Mohawk." Woodsman allows normal movement speed in forests and jungle, what you're thinking of in the second paragraph.

Ok cool, this sounds like a good change. Thanks.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Food for thought:
Should Gunship really be able to not have amphibious assault penalty, since when in water, it's in "transport" like any other land unit? It doesn't attack beach as chopper.

 

[Thalassicus]

The way I see it, helicopters are probably on board vessels they take off from, and fly inland to the beach. It wouldn't make much sense to cart it in on a boat the whole way.

Ideally helicopters would simply fly over "coast" terrain and turn into a transport over "ocean," but we can't mod that in with current tools.

 

[player1 fanatic]

They could be, but it doesn't look like that when animation plays (ship attacks, and then gunship "lands" after battle). Plus, "transports" aren't really Carriers with landing pads and air strips.

And, I don't think they were really ment as replacement for proper land unit with amphibious promotion (why bother, if chopper can do it for free?).

Ideally helicopters would simply fly over "coast" terrain and turn into a transport over "ocean," but we can't mod that in with current tools.

agreed

 

[Thalassicus]

Choppers in general are sort of odd... they have access to a wide array of promotions if upgraded to, but very limited if built directly.

 

[player1 fanatic]

That true.
Such things happen when you allow cross-class upgrades (land unit to "chopper" unit), as afterthought in game patch.

 

[Basss]

Good day guys! Please advise me with my little problem.

When i got a Unit Promotions, buttons for Promote unit - is unclick-able. So, i cant continue a game(

Thals Balance Mods - Combined (v 4) - installed.
Civ 5 version is - 1.01.167

Thx!

 

[VimesUK]

Thal could you please have a look at this thread ....

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=399132&highlight=submarine

and let me know if it could merit any suitable "fixes" that you would consider to be either a part on the unofficial patch or one of your addons..?

I started to wonder if my subs had forgotten to submerge as I found very little advantage to using them.

If any solution was possible I do hope that the AI would recognise the need to adapt to use it and thus the subs would then not be overpowered.

 

[Basss]

My problem with any land unit. Pls help to solve this problem. Unplayable now(

 

[Thalassicus]

@Basss
I tested it and promotions seem to be working okay. Do you have any other mods installed, and have you cleared your cache?

@Xink
Thanks for linking that thread, I'll include BomberEscort's recommendation.

The solution I propose is the best compromise possible with the current modding tools:

Remove PROMOTION_SEE_INVISIBLE_SUBMARINE from all units other than submarines. Subs will be able to detect subs out to their sight radius. All other units (land and naval) will need to be in an adjacent hex (currently not fixable).

Give the Subs PROMOTION_EXTRA_SIGHT_I allowing the subs to see 3 hexes.

 

[Ahriman]

Remove PROMOTION_SEE_INVISIBLE_SUBMARINE from all units other than submarines. Subs will be able to detect subs out to their sight radius. All other units (land and naval) will need to be in an adjacent hex (currently not fixable).

Give the Subs PROMOTION_EXTRA_SIGHT_I allowing the subs to see 3 hexes.

This is interesting, but potentially very dangerous for the AI.

Does the AI know how to scout with its naval units? Will the AI notice subs and hunt them down?

Stealth is something that is very hard to do well, and the Civ series has never done a good job of it. Either the AI always ends up knowing the unit is there (in which case stealth is too weak) or the AI never notices the unit is there (in which case stealth is too strong). In most civ games the AI ignored the stealth on subs and could just head straight for the sub and kill it, while actual invisible land combat units (there weren't any in vanilla other than spies, but many mods added some) were too strong because the AI never understood how to bring a detector unit nearby.

Another alternative would be to be to forget trying to fix the problem by actually hiding the subs, and just change how the subs worked. Forget trying to deal with when they can or can't be spotted strategically (its not like no-one knew there were Wolfpacks in the North Atlantic), and just have their stealth be a tactical consideration that affects what they are vulnerable to.

IMO the design goal should be:
a) Allow subs to be useful for recon purposes without being attacked from land
b) Make most ships only mildly effective vs subs. Battleships and missile cruisers are not an effective anti-sub weapon.
c) Make subs very vulnerable to destroyers and aircraft.

We could try and accomplish this by:
Leave subs visible to anything that can see them, so both the human and AI always know they're there.
Make subs immune or unable to be targeted or have a huge damage resistance to on-shore bombardment. You shouldn't be able to fire on subs with cities or artillery, thats just not reasonable.
Make subs have a high defensive strength, so that most bombardment attacks don't hurt them much.
Give destroyers, fighters, jet fighters and maybe bomber/stealth bomber units (for gameplay, not realism) a significant bonus vs submarine units.
The AI looks for targets by evaluating how much damage it can do, so it will naturally attack subs with destroyers, while using battleships and the like to fire on surface ships or land units.

 

[VimesUK]

@ Ahriman - that is why I had written....

If any solution was possible I do hope that the AI would recognise the need to adapt to use it and thus the subs would then not be overpowered.

...thanks for adding what you have done. It just seems a little wasted as it is having subs when if any land or naval unit can see it if adjacent to it.

What would the point be of any land unit being able to see the sub if the sub wasn't able to damage any coastal cities..?

 

[Ahriman]

If any solution was possible I do hope that the AI would recognise the need to adapt to use it and thus the subs would then not be overpowered.

I think it is generally a mistake to create a design an then just hope that the AI can use it. Chances are, the AI won't be able to use it.

What would the point be of any land unit being able to see the sub if the sub wasn't able to damage any coastal cities..?

The point of moving stealth from the strategic level to the tactical level is that the AI doesn't understand strategic stealth.

I don't understand how whether the sub can be spotted by land units is related to whether or not the sub could attack coastal cities.

There is value in letting any unit spot the sub, even if they can't hurt the sub, because then they can bring up forces to actually attack it. If the AI can't spot the sub at all except when adjacent, and it doesn't know how to use to scout for subs, then its not going to be able to combat subs.
Thats the joy of letting anything spot the sub, but only some units hurt it (or hurt it effectively). You can still have the sub be immune to certain damage types without worrying that the AI will never be able to deal with it.

It also means that we could have subs cause a blockade without that being really confusing (being blockaded by a unit you can't see would feel like a bug to many players).

In the design I propose:
Any unit would be able to spot the sub. No more strategic stealth, that is a failed mechanic.
Only specialist anti-sub units would be able to fight the sub cost-effectively. So you still need subs or aircraft or destroyers in order to fight off enemy subs.
But you *know* that you need those units, and you know where to send them.
This gets rid of the whole "when can you spot the sub or not" issue and replaces it by just making the sub a specialist unit that can be countered only by particular unit types.

Its ok though that the land units can't shoot the sub, because the sub can't shoot the land units either. The sub becomes a naval superiority weapon, rather than a weird stealth unit that doesn't work properly.
So we would have:
Destroyer = cheap, low-tech, fast, good vs subs if fights first, weak.
Battleship = superior bombardment, great vs land targets and cities, vulnerable to subs.
Submarine = good vs battleship, missile cruiser, carrier. Good vs other subs and destroyers if strike first. Weak vs aircraft. Good vs transports.
Missile cruiser = superior battleship.

 

[Thalassicus]

Something to keep in mind is all land, air and sea units can see subs. The invisibility is rather broken...

@Ahriman
You have a good idea about shifting from a detection-based mechanic to a mechanic based on hard counters. I like it and will figure out what options I could pursue in the files.

I generally avoid hard-counter fixes because even though they're easy to balance, I find games like AoE that rely on that mechanic somewhat lacking in strategic depth. There's not many hard-counter scenarios in the game right now, so it seems reasonable to provide an exception for subs.

The only downside to big combat bonuses is it marginalizes promotions. It'd be really easy if only submarines were their own combat class... for some bizzare reason the developers put subs in the standard "naval" combat class. This is why they get the Bombardment promotion to attack land units - even though they can't do so! Helicopters got their own combat class so I don't know why subs didn't as well. Who knows?

 

[player1 fanatic]

Something to keep in mind is all land, air and sea units can see subs.

But only at range of 1.