Design: Units

[Kael]

i'm already posted it in another tread, but little late so reposting it here just for receiving feedback

------------

as far as i remember, in all versions of Civ, there was no opportunity to support city in areas with poor-food terrain. Its not realistic for me, so what if, to add a way for food supply to your mod?

Unit: food caravan
Costs: ???
Build by food (may be only by food, if it is possible)
No Strength, can be captured.
Can do "supply" (add ??? food to the target city storage, caravan is destroyed)

USE: build in food-rich city, in a way as worker/settler does, соnsuming excess food, then moved to target city and do "supply", adding fixed ammount of food to city storage if it isn't full or grows up city if food storage is full.

* allow to speed up city grows by costs of stoping it in another
* allow to have not size 1 city in arctic/desert zones (resource cities)
* allow to prevent death of citisens from starvation in case of temporal food lack, as a result of farm pillaging or civic change or other
* allow to create specialized production centers, or GP farm (culture centres) wich do not feed themselfs, but supplyed by other cities (its a country, not a just a group of selfish cities, isn't it? )
* allow to cultivate culture in border cities affecting by foreign culture bomb to get back some of lost land

i do not think this feature will be overpowred, becouse of resourses/GP/production you get from this "donated" city, will be compensated by loosing production in donor city, more than, it can be balanced by caravan cost/supply numbers (30/20 for example).

the only question is how to teach AI to use it?

PS. sorry for my english...

My fear is that it creates micromanagement. I dont know that its very fun to keep creating supply wagons. You're right that it would be a realistic addition but I like the balance of city growth based on local food so that you get pros/cons for different areas. Being able to mitigate that with a supply wagon lessens the importance of one of the best strategic decisions in the game, where to places cities.

 

[userOne]

I agree, what it adds micromanagement, but for whom? Only for those who agrees to use it. Enabling it you do not force to use it. That to whom it will be unnecessary - will never use it, that for whom it simply a chesspiece uses it few times, to whom it is interesting - will use to it constantly. Yuo just add another way to play.

It will not reduce importance of city placement, it just gives it аnother way to choose. Whether you цфте to have city on 20 mined hills, having huge production, but starving 20 foods per turn, and forcing you to have 2-3 another cities to supply it with food. Turn per turn. It will be user decision.
Now if i have city with 4-5 food resources - i have only one role for it: settler/worker farm early, GP farm later. It wil give it one more role - sood supplyer for high production city. And player will decide what role to choose.

 

[Kael]

I agree, what it adds micromanagement, but for whom? Only for those who agrees to use it. Enabling it you do not force to use it. That to whom it will be unnecessary - will never use it, that for whom it simply a chesspiece uses it few times, to whom it is interesting - will use to it constantly. Yuo just add another way to play.

It will not reduce importance of city placement, it just gives it аnother way to choose. Whether you цфте to have city on 20 mined hills, having huge production, but starving 20 foods per turn, and forcing you to have 2-3 another cities to supply it with food. Turn per turn. It will be user decision.
Now if i have city with 4-5 food resources - i have only one role for it: settler/worker farm early, GP farm later. It wil give it one more role - sood supplyer for high production city. And player will decide what role to choose.

So this is the curse of optionals. If the option exists it either gives a significant advantage (for its cost) or it doesnt. If it doesn't then why is it in there? If it does give a significant advantage then players are punished for not using it by being less efective players. And if the option isnt fun to use then they are put in the bad situation of having to do something that isnt enjoyable so that they can play as efficently as possible.

 

[feydras]

Speaking of micromanagment has any thought been given to eliminating the need to move outdated units back to a city with the right building to upgrade them? I would suggest allowing upgrades to any basic, unlimited unit (provided you have the required building in one of your cities) but still requiring the trip for the national, limited (only 3) units.

Example - upgrading all archers to longbowmen or warriors to swordsmen requires a lot of unit micromanagement just to get all of your cities' defenders current. A compromise could be to make them still have to be in one of your cities, just not the one city that has the upgrade building (archery range or barracks in this case).

What do you think?

- feydras

 

[Chalid]

Speaking of micromanagment has any thought been given to eliminating the need to move outdated units back to a city with the right building to upgrade them? I would suggest allowing upgrades to any basic, unlimited unit (provided you have the required building in one of your cities) but still requiring the trip for the national, limited (only 3) units.

Example - upgrading all archers to longbowmen or warriors to swordsmen requires a lot of unit micromanagement just to get all of your cities' defenders current. A compromise could be to make them still have to be in one of your cities, just not the one city that has the upgrade building (archery range or barracks in this case).

What do you think?

- feydras

I like this Idea. That will help the AI, too, as AI does not mircomanage in this style and writing routines that force the AI to move outdated units to upgrading points seems rather a bad idea. I would even allow it for restricted units for exactly this reason (at last for the AI - ok some might say AI will cheat but i think the AI is hindered by the Prerequisite buildings that much that its ok)

 

[loki1232]

I don't know, I really like the city thing. Also, it takes away from the doviellow ho can upgrade units in the feild.

 

[woodelf]

Can you tweak the costs somehow? Leave it as is if you upgrade in a city with a building, but double it in the field?

And definitely find a way to leave the Doveillo alone. That is a cool feature.

 

[Chalid]

At least we should add it in for the AI. Otherwise it will never get really competitive as it would under no circumstances move a unit somewhere to upgrade it. And i do not want to write a script that does. Such a thing woulld a) be a horror and b) cripple the Ai in other cases.

How about: All civs can upgrade theri units as long as:
a) the unit is stationed in a city
b) the prerequisites for upgrading are met in at least any citi of this civ ( b2: maybe any city on the same continent?)

The doviello would have the advantage of not having to move their units back to their cities (and if we take b2 into consideration on ther continents as well)

 

[woodelf]

Is there anyway to code something like this...

If a unit, say a warrior, is simply sitting in a city that has a barracks shouldn't he be able to "train" over the years and become an axeman for free? Maybe after 25+ turns of sitting there he should absorb enough training?

Same for archers, horsemen, ect. Too farfetched?

 

[loki1232]

Is there anyway to code something like this...

If a unit, say a warrior, is simply sitting in a city that has a barracks shouldn't he be able to "train" over the years and become an axeman for free? Maybe after 25+ turns of sitting there he should absorb enough training?

Same for archers, horsemen, ect. Too farfetched?

Well what if the city doesn't bother making axes?

 

[woodelf]

Well what if the city doesn't bother making axes?

Do you mean they built a barracks, but didn't use it for axemen? How about you need to build a new unit (ie - prototype) and then lesser units stationed there can become that unit over time?

Or did you mean that there were no axes to be found in the city so how could a warrior become an axeman?

 

[Chalid]

I think automated upgrade is not really needed. Waiting 25 turns when not in war is peanuts... So you are no longer punished for putting all your resources into research. Actually automatical upgrade would make the most valuable startegy to built many warriors and tech as fast as possible that the cheap warrior upgrad as fast as possible to usefull units.
Oh and one other thing. Barraks allow Warriors to be upgraded to Axeman or Spearman... You would take that choice from the player... not good...

But allowing to upgrade in all cities regardless of buildings in the actuall city... now you'll see that this will give a big boost to the AI. (As you can see I am as always looking at this problem for the AIs side, as all of you are on the players side )

 

[woodelf]

Now now. I'm trying to help the AI with my mapscript bandwagon.

Yeah, the spearman/axeman issue is a problem, but easily resolved with prototypes or a simple pop-up. No biggie, but I think the costs should be lower if you upgrade in a properly equipped city.

 

[AndrewDJ]

With regard to what userOne wrote, IIRC, in Civ2, when you sent a trading caravan to a city you had the option to either create a trade route exchanging goods, or you could create a route exporting food from the city of origin to the receiving city. The donor city would be losing 1 food per turn which would be transferred to the donee city.

Very useful in Civ2, not sure if implementable in Civ4.

EDIT: Actually, it may have been 2 food that transferred. It's been a very long time since I played Civ2, and I almost never built caravans anyway.

 

[puck11b]

In regards to food caravans:
There is also the method that SMAC used, have a resource trawler that can work a square in your cultural borders. This trawler could select one type of production (food, hammers, or coin) and the production from that square would be sent back to the city that created it.
I'd say make a limit to how many trawlers each city could produce (or make it a national unit with a limit of n*2 where n is the number of cities you control) to make certain no one creates a real horror of a gp/spec city. Perhaps make it so that you cannot remotely work a tile in a city's fat plus... don't know how hard it would be to have the AI figure out how to work it.

 

[evanb]

Could someone please explain how exactly Loki works? I want numbers!

 

[Kael]

Could someone please explain how exactly Loki works? I want numbers!

		bValid = True
		for i in range(pPlot.getNumUnits()):
			pUnit = pPlot.getUnit(i)
			if (pUnit.getUnitType() == gc.getInfoTypeForString('UNIT_GYPSY_WAGON') or pUnit.getUnitType() == gc.getInfoTypeForString('UNIT_LOKI')):
				if bValid == True:
					if pUnit.getOwner() == pCity.getOwner():
						pCity.changeCulture(pCity.getOwner(), 2, True)
					else:
						if (pCity.getCulture(pCity.getOwner()) > 1 or pUnit.getUnitType() == gc.getInfoTypeForString('UNIT_LOKI')):
							pCity.changeCulture(pCity.getOwner(), -1, True)
						if pPlayer.getGold() > 2:
							pPlayer.changeGold(-2)
							p2Player = gc.getPlayer(pUnit.getOwner())
							p2Player.changeGold(1)
					bValid = False

Basically if Loki is in his own city he gives it 2 culture a turn. If he is in an opponents city he reduces their culture by 1, their gold by 2 and gives one of the gold to his owning civ.

All fo the culture effects need reevaluated. They dont do enough right now.

 

[TheJopa]

I agree that archer need to be upgradeable without archery ranges. You would still need archery ranges to build longbowmen. And AI is really handicaped because I have Immortals while his towns are still defended by archers. Or maybe to halve price of archery ranges?

 

[loki1232]

		bValid = True
		for i in range(pPlot.getNumUnits()):
			pUnit = pPlot.getUnit(i)
			if (pUnit.getUnitType() == gc.getInfoTypeForString('UNIT_GYPSY_WAGON') or pUnit.getUnitType() == gc.getInfoTypeForString('UNIT_LOKI')):
				if bValid == True:
					if pUnit.getOwner() == pCity.getOwner():
						pCity.changeCulture(pCity.getOwner(), 2, True)
					else:
						if (pCity.getCulture(pCity.getOwner()) > 1 or pUnit.getUnitType() == gc.getInfoTypeForString('UNIT_LOKI')):
							pCity.changeCulture(pCity.getOwner(), -1, True)
						if pPlayer.getGold() > 2:
							pPlayer.changeGold(-2)
							p2Player = gc.getPlayer(pUnit.getOwner())
							p2Player.changeGold(1)
					bValid = False

Basically if Loki is in his own city he gives it 2 culture a turn. If he is in an opponents city he reduces their culture by 1, their gold by 2 and gives one of the gold to his owning civ.

All fo the culture effects need reevaluated. They dont do enough right now.

Could we up the effects a little? I mean loki seems much less powerful than any of the other heros, even relative to their appearance.

1. Allow him to cast that spell which increase culture in a friendly city he's in.
2. Make him reduce enemy city's cultue by a percentage, like 5%. And his civ would get half of that in loki's birthplace.
3. increase the gold sucking a little, perhaps 3 and i keep 2.

 

[woodelf]

perhaps 3 and i keep 2.

The i strikes me as funny for some reason. You are becoming the loki.