Crime & Punishment

[Thunderbrd]

Well... I mean... they'd TRY to fight, even if they don't fight well don't you think? It's nice to get a few more xp out of a city invasion. And at least, the way they are, they can't be killed by truly incapable animals like pigeons and such. It's been a bit of a goal of mine to eventually have all units have some strength as 0 strength pretty much makes no sense at all itself. (Unless you're talking about an Idea unit or something that isn't really a 'unit' in the standard sense of the term. Unfortunately even generals MUST be 0 str to function.)

 

[Sparth]

Well... I mean... they'd TRY to fight, even if they don't fight well don't you think?

Im pretty sure that workers/settlers (both with 0 str) can be better combatants then Wise Woman or Healer.

Look from player perspective. When you destroy all combat units (archers, warriors etc) then now you still must destroy healers. And AI is building them like crazy. In my last game AI city got 15 combat units and 30+ ecologists.
Its kind a silly that combat unit need the same time to destroy another, weaker combat unit and healer (1 turn).

This is just unfun. I know that C2C modders dont like this word but I think sometime streamlining > realism.

 

[tmv]

I don't think there are many regular buildings that give XP to rams. Are you supposed to settle GGs to get XP for them?

 

[JosEPh_II]

@T-brd,
Since all the rams used were captured Maori rams, then ask Heke why his rams had no promos.
I find no reason to build my own rams as they are a wash for me. I can capture as many as I need with some patience on my part. And why would I clog my build list on a worthless unit? The AI builds enough for Both of us. I have much, much more important things to build than rams.

For me when any unit or building proves itself useless I stop building them. Why waste the processing time on something that has no real value?

The AI has taught me 1 thing though. If I build rams it will be the Siege Rams and Towers and then I will place them around my city's border tiles to clog the enemies approach to my city. Very time consuming process to weed your way thru the Siege thicket to get to the cherry tree.

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

Im pretty sure that workers/settlers (both with 0 str) can be better combatants then Wise Woman or Healer.

Very true and I intend to eventually empower workers and settlers with strength. There's some code challenges to overcome to achieve this is all. Much of it in the AI.

Look from player perspective. When you destroy all combat units (archers, warriors etc) then now you still must destroy healers.

I understand that. There is an ability or two that could be made a bit more common to counter this effect which I'm starting to think that due to this issue should get some earlier game consideration than it was given previously.

Onslaught is one. Onslaught allows the attacker to continue to attack as long as the attacker continues to go uninjured. Against numerous healers, this may be a capability that would make sense... perhaps for mounted units in general. There's also Stampede which I think could be made more common than just for application on Rhino units. Stampede makes the attacker basically continue to attack until it or all opponents on the attacked tile are dead.

If I recall, I had considered creating an integer value for Onslaught that allows a specified amount of HP to be lost before it stops attacking, which could both be a way to potentially replace the Stampede ability (streamlining) as a 100% Onslaught would in effect still be a Stampede, and a way to make Onslaught potentially more useful and developable as an ability.

I'll take a deeper look at this next version cycle when reviewing military more closely.

And AI is building them like crazy. In my last game AI city got 15 combat units and 30+ ecologists.

Ok, that's an interesting footnote. The ecologists are there to counter polution and they are so weak at doing so that it takes a lot of them. I put in some reluctance to overbuild but I was wondering if I was going to need to further adjust the xml value that controls that reluctance factor. Sounds like I do.

Its kind a silly that combat unit need the same time to destroy another, weaker combat unit and healer (1 turn).

Yeah... I agree. Of course, such an application of making onslaught more common would certainly almost completely mute the benefit of splitting units on SM. At least it takes away the value of doing so for the sake of trying to hold the attack at bay a little longer. But it would still make sense and wouldn't take away ALL value of splitting - would complicate the reasons to do so though so that would need to be considered with some AI tweaks.

This is just unfun. I know that C2C modders dont like this word but I think sometime streamlining > realism.

I actually don't think you're arguing on the basis of streamlining as much as realism in this case and that's where I'm looking at gradually addressing the concern. But yeah, streamlining certainly does not trump realism. Though it IS a factor to take into consideration when modeling effects.

I don't think there are many regular buildings that give XP to rams. Are you supposed to settle GGs to get XP for them?

There aren't and that's something that should get some expanding on imo. There are some... the Archery range I think adds some to siege if I recall. I usually settle almost all my GGs so I suppose that helps. And where civics can give XP I'm usually selecting them to maximize XP awards.

@T-brd,
Since all the rams used were captured Maori rams, then ask Heke why his rams had no promos.

Ah... captures lose all XP. That certainly explains that. Those capture are the ones I'll gleefully use as fodder.

I find no reason to build my own rams as they are a wash for me. I can capture as many as I need with some patience on my part. And why would I clog my build list on a worthless unit? The AI builds enough for Both of us. I have much, much more important things to build than rams.

Fair 'nuff the way rams are currently built by the AI. But the ones with promos are much more powerful of course.

 

[JosEPh_II]

But the ones with promos are much more powerful of course.

Probably so.

But the effort to get them the Promos.....not sure it's worth the effort and time cost.

JosEPh

 

[Sparth]

I understand that. There is an ability or two that could be made a bit more common to counter this effect which I'm starting to think that due to this issue should get some earlier game consideration than it was given previously.

Ok this looks like solution.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Some clarifications to some statements made here.

I actually don't think you're arguing on the basis of streamlining as much as realism in this case and that's where I'm looking at gradually addressing the concern. But yeah, streamlining certainly does not trump realism. Though it IS a factor to take into consideration when modeling effects.

Actually T-brd, Sparth is saying the exact Opposite of this. Streamlining Must at times take precedent over realism. And you seem to be getting caught up in Realism to the point of making some units irrelevant to good game play, hence the Streamlining >(is Greater than) Realism. We are not playing a Simulator game here.

There are some... the Archery range I think adds some to siege if I recall.

Archery range is not available in this time frame being discussed. And the 2 promos that I can recall for Rams (and I don't believe are available when this problem is occurring) are confusing to me as to which one you Need (maybe you need both )to reduce the City wall defense %.

JosEPh

 

[Taxman66]

Joe, I haven't had as much trouble as you seem to with the rams (the 4 STR ones, I don't bother trying to take cities with the earlier ones). First, I haven't much a problem getting them 5xp in nearly any city that is up and running. If you plan to just use captured ones that's a significant issue. You could even use a mix of captured and built ones.

First, use Arsonists and/or specifically promoted Archers (with the bombard promos {looks like a hail of arrows}) to bombard. Though it is a bit of crap shoot it never hurts and might help a touch.

Second, you must attack with the promoted rams first. Even though it means they are going to die.
The promotion that adds to the %success is more important than the one that adds %damage (at first). These rams, and it isn't hard to get 5xp to get 2 levels of the promo, are essential for getting some initial hits on the walls to weaken them. This makes successive ram attacks (even from those captured rams) more likely to succeed.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Actually T-brd, Sparth is saying the exact Opposite of this. Streamlining Must at times take precedent over realism. And you seem to be getting caught up in Realism to the point of making some units irrelevant to good game play, hence the Streamlining >(is Greater than) Realism. We are not playing a Simulator game here.

I know he was. And I disagree. On both points you make. We ARE playing a simulator game here (albeit one with a rather poor degree of simulation resolution that this mod is ALL ABOUT trying to improve on) and realism, while shouldn't be trumping streamlining, should at least be taken into as much accounting as streamlining. I say both are equally valuable.

Archery range is not available in this time frame being discussed. And the 2 promos that I can recall for Rams (and I don't believe are available when this problem is occurring) are confusing to me as to which one you Need (maybe you need both )to reduce the City wall defense %.

You've been explained what they both mean. One generates a greater likelihood per round of doing damage to the wall. The other generates more damage to the wall when damage has been done. It's a personal question to the player where they put their faith. Do they feel lucky enough to hit and thus would prefer to enhance their ability to damage when they do? Or do they feel more confident that more likelihood to hit, despite not being as damaging, is more important?

In testing, I've been finding that the likelihood is that Taxman is absolutely right. I personally start with the ones that extend the chance of doing damage to the wall first. If you can get enough XP into the ram that you can get to the end of the promotionline there's a bonus there that gives a little of the benefit of the other line. With both of them, they gain more benefit as they go but it's still a valid strategy to alternate which ones you choose because one plus the other can be the most immediately beneficial. Again, makes for an 'interesting decision' where no decision is wrong really... just arguable over.

Joe, I haven't had as much trouble as you seem to with the rams (the 4 STR ones, I don't bother trying to take cities with the earlier ones). First, I haven't much a problem getting them 5xp in nearly any city that is up and running. If you plan to just use captured ones that's a significant issue. You could even use a mix of captured and built ones.

First, use Arsonists and/or specifically promoted Archers (with the bombard promos {looks like a hail of arrows}) to bombard. Though it is a bit of crap shoot it never hurts and might help a touch.

Second, you must attack with the promoted rams first. Even though it means they are going to die.
The promotion that adds to the %success is more important than the one that adds %damage (at first). These rams, and it isn't hard to get 5xp to get 2 levels of the promo, are essential for getting some initial hits on the walls to weaken them. This makes successive ram attacks (even from those captured rams) more likely to succeed.

This has been my experience with them as well. And sometimes if you've captured enough 'fodder' rams you can use them first to give the ones you're hoping may survive a fighting chance to do so. On smaller cities this can work to prepare an army to face the larger more protected ones as a heavily promoted ram that attacks even effective defenses is GOING to do some serious damage before it perishes.

Thanks for this report Taxman... I know you're not backwards in coming forwards if you've been having severe trouble with something so I find this very helpful. And you don't play with Size Matters either if I recall do you? (Validating that the feedback applies to the core.)

 

[Taxman66]

Correct, I do not play with Size Matters. I don't play on the highest difficulty either, if that makes much of a difference.

I'm also using v36+latest patch from Sparth (v. 9016) and I'm not seeing tons and tons of rams at all or even massive numbers of AI units and I'm at early classic stage filling out the 1st column in 2 games with one having a stretch to get Hellenism).

I don't fight early wars with the intention of taking developed cities. I might fight them over territory where I want a city and the AI beat me to the area. New or still developing cities are easy. When I do go to all out war (for example was boxed in by multiple AIs and had nowhere else to expand), I pick on the weaker one if given the choice. Still I don't need a gazillion rams to take out a developed city. 10-15 is more than enough, even against the Capital.

 

[Taxman66]

I know he was. And I disagree. On both points you make. We ARE playing a simulator game here (albeit one with a rather poor degree of simulation resolution that this mod is ALL ABOUT trying to improve on) and realism, while shouldn't be trumping streamlining, should at least be taken into as much accounting as streamlining. I say both are equally valuable.

Sorry, I can't help but laugh a little bit at the 'realism' argument. Allowing the 'punk' and megafuana tech/units makes me snicker when anyone wants to argue realism. Same goes for the 'planned' idea of poison and diseases affecting units for multiple turns. Sorry just don't buy it.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

... poison and diseases affecting units for multiple turns. Sorry just don't buy it.

With this I mostly agree, although dysentery was known to affect armies over long periods it is probably better implemented as a one hit and is gone leaving the troops more likely to get a new disease or even the same one next turn.

As far as programming disease spread go it you either need to have the current diseased units/cities continue to have it at the beginning of the turn and then spread to other units and then leave the original units at the end of the second turn; Or at the end of a turn mark who will get the disease next turn and then remove it from those that have the disease. The former is better if units because they can move during the turn and spread the disease much further. What I am saying is that for disease spread most will need a minimum of one and a bit turns of infection.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Sorry, I can't help but laugh a little bit at the 'realism' argument. Allowing the 'punk' and megafuana tech/units makes me snicker when anyone wants to argue realism. Same goes for the 'planned' idea of poison and diseases affecting units for multiple turns. Sorry just don't buy it.

With this I mostly agree, although dysentery was known to affect armies over long periods it is probably better implemented as a one hit and is gone leaving the troops more likely to get a new disease or even the same one next turn.

As far as programming disease spread go it you either need to have the current diseased units/cities continue to have it at the beginning of the turn and then spread to other units and then leave the original units at the end of the second turn; Or at the end of a turn mark who will get the disease next turn and then remove it from those that have the disease. The former is better if units because they can move during the turn and spread the disease much further. What I am saying is that for disease spread most will need a minimum of one and a bit turns of infection.

When it comes to unit movements, the tracking of movement and time for units has always been a microcosm expanded into the macrocosm. It's representative for the 'events' taking place. Each turn is much much more time than what units would take to make every move they do. One space of movement in the Prehistoric is enough time to represent the deaths and replacements of every individual within the force. But it works because you can envision that the major events of the era are still encompassed within these movements. Therefore, from a strategic perspective, we're talking every move was maybe a day or week within that span of a month to 50 years. Therefore, if a unit has a disease for 3-5 rounds or more, that's, just like their movements, envisionable as representing 3-5 days or weeks rather than the hundreds of years that passes on the national level.

It's intended that units would need to be quarantined in some cases or used to inflict their disease upon the units within the plots they do battle with. Without these things lasting some time and being a challenge to heal, it really doesn't have any role to play. Without a role to play it cannot reasonably represent the historical effect of disease on the battlefield, a historical effect which was truly profound in many ages and wars. Poisons could not be made to do damage over time which is a sorely lacking aspect of Civ combat. And healers would continue to be fairly one or two dimmensional without the ability to be made to diversify to address differing afflictions.

That said, the intention to make this all 'optional' is there for a reason. I'm just arguing how I feel it does not violate simulation reality.

Furthermore, I've never felt it was unrealistic to believe that other animals may have been as equally domesticated and put to the uses we've used horses for. In a world without horses entirely, this would've been inevitable. Animals are just thinking creatures like we are... they just have somewhat different perspectives, social conditionings on a biological level, and trust levels and understandably so. But if raised from youth, even bears are quite sympathetic to the wills of their trainers. Such training wouldn't have been all that difficult to proliferate among people to the point that an entire society lived in as much a symbiosis with the bear as we do with the horse. The idea that the horse was such a perfect workforce companion for us has been one we've not needed any other animals to fulfill that role for us therefore have not had cause to proliferate the animals with which we've invested so much of our time and efforts to achieve such a working relationship with (except the elephant which is just as or more surprising to have been put to the uses they have been as any of the animals we developed 'riders' for.) It boils down to our conditioning of what to expect from the world. People with different conditioning and teachings would've found different solutions in their development than we did.

 

[Noriad2]

(deleted)

 

[tmv]

I don't think it's a good idea to confuse "historical realism" with - what you might call - physical realism. You cannot really get "historical realism" in a game - that's for documentaries where you cannot intervene.

I mean, "historical realism" is lost if in your game the declaration of independence is pushed back to 1777. And "historical realism" is lost if you train animals that were never trained as a mount but could have been. "Historical realism" is lost if in your game the inventions of Leonardo da Vinci are recognized for what they can do - which is pretty much what clockpunk is about. Or if Babbage's analytical engine was really built, leading pretty much to steampunk.

Most of the ...punk techs really fall in the "could have been" territory, and the ...punks of the future in the "could still happen" territory.

 

[Taxman66]

Still don't buy it.
Not going to bother arguing it either.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I know he was. And I disagree. On both points you make. We ARE playing a simulator game here (albeit one with a rather poor degree of simulation resolution that this mod is ALL ABOUT trying to improve on) and realism, while shouldn't be trumping streamlining, should at least be taken into as much accounting as streamlining. I say both are equally valuable.

No, we are playing a 4X strategy game, says so on the box my CD's came in. Not Sim City like Hydro wanted C2C to be.

You've been explained what they both mean. One generates a greater likelihood per round of doing damage to the wall. The other generates more damage to the wall when damage has been done. It's a personal question to the player where they put their faith. Do they feel lucky enough to hit and thus would prefer to enhance their ability to damage when they do? Or do they feel more confident that more likelihood to hit, despite not being as damaging, is more important?

Would not have posted what I did if I understood those promos. The in game descriptions are most "greek" to me.

In testing, I've been finding that the likelihood is that Taxman is absolutely right. I personally start with the ones that extend the chance of doing damage to the wall first. If you can get enough XP into the ram that you can get to the end of the promotionline there's a bonus there that gives a little of the benefit of the other line. With both of them, they gain more benefit as they go but it's still a valid strategy to alternate which ones you choose because one plus the other can be the most immediately beneficial. Again, makes for an 'interesting decision' where no decision is wrong really... just arguable over.

I'll take taxman's advice since I rarely if ever build rams "anymore" or even plan too. Maybe you have not noticed, but I don't play like you nor share the same ideals of How to play.

As to your "If you can get enough XP into the ram...." that's the problem. Don't build them for reasons already stated, you should Know that! And it takes too long to "build them up promo wise". Why? cause it eats up too much build and usage time. Especially since I don't Declare War early game ( I have better units/buildings to get up and running in my cities than these rams), and as such, on whom do I get to use these rams on to build them up if I would build them?

I'm done with this ram issue for now, until they overflow the early game again. Then look out, I'll be back!

As For Crime and such related stuff, until you are done T-brd with all your Projects that even remotely deal with this subject, I guess any further Crime adjustments are On Hold till further notice. This might push it back for years to come. Most likely directly related to seeing how all this new stuff plays out. Once it's in place and can be played thru more than once or twice.

JosEPh

 

[damerell]

Crime-wise, I've just spotted a Cutthroat in one of my cities. Previously I've either been able to arrest AI crime units or they've apparently been destroyed by the act of discovery (or by some auto-hunt unit killing them?)

However, I can do nothing about this jasper. What am I missing, please?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Crime-wise, I've just spotted a Cutthroat in one of my cities. Previously I've either been able to arrest AI crime units or they've apparently been destroyed by the act of discovery (or by some auto-hunt unit killing them?)

However, I can do nothing about this jasper. What am I missing, please?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14143404&postcount=11
And a few posts down from there is an additional suggestion on how to address them.