Doto [AdvCiv ModMod]

[pecheneg]

more ideas are welcomed.

Limit the number of "counterattacks"/defense episodes for one unit during a turn. Moreover, the number of episodes should be a special characteristic.
Now we see a situation where the strongest defender defends first and an unlimited number of times. In fact, a huge stack of garbage can be covered from attack by one strong unit. Which looks like a real fight in about no way. And yes, it's straightforward and boring.
Let's look at two examples to understand how this might work and why it's important.

1. My favorite artillery. Let's say enemy No. 1 has one heavy powerful weapon, and the opponent has a huge number of mortars. In reality, the super cannon will suppress several, and the rest will successfully damage enemy troops. That is why in our reality armies have a huge number of mortars, and not one "Big Bertha".
In the vanilla version, this will only lead to the fact that a large cannon will destroy an unlimited number of mortars.

2. Similarly, in real battles, real people were not omnipresent and tired. This was especially significant in the era of hand-to-hand fighting and heavy armor. And, by the way, this became one of the unobvious, but very strong advantages of light infantry after its appearance.
In general, as is obvious and confirmed by thousands of examples, a heavily armed infantryman, for example, was forced to leave the battle much earlier than his light colleague or cavalryman. And due to his lower mobility, he could not cover everyone. This is also why the armies were diverse and built on interaction.
And yes, for long-range troops who are not sitting right in the ammunition depot, the ammunition supply factor has always been significant.
The idea, in general, is for tough guys in ear-to-ear armor to be severely limited in the number of "defense episodes", and more lightly armed units to have greater "endurance", all other things being equal.

 

[keldath]

@pecheneg
Hi,
Well, that's actually a good idea and as you wrote quite realistic.

Only concern i have is weakening defense and giving an attacker more advantage.

So how should i implement it:
Defense counter per turn: 3 .
Replenish: reset each turn or deduct 1 per turn.
Can apply promotion to this parameter as well.
Also could add a bonus on defending times vs lower tiered units.


How about some attacker limit?
I like the limit on attacks per player based on some sources.
Could be named attrition towards an enemy.

 

[pecheneg]

Hi.

Well, that's actually a good idea

Thank you.

Also could add a bonus on defending times vs lower tiered units.

It's going to be great.

How about some attacker limit?
I like the limit on attacks per player based on some sources.

In this way, you will simply realize my dreams. I am very in favor of regulating/limiting the ability to conduct combat operations with the amount of resources. Аnd it seems that a dozen people have already managed to get bored with these ideas.

By the way, there is one remarkable fact. I think you've noticed that AI actually already understands logistics in part in the vanilla version. That is, it takes into account the availability of resources for a specific unit mission. This can be seen in the example of railway construction – a worker will not be able to build it if coal is not "delivered" to him via an already prepared road or river.That is, it is not a problem to organize military logistics of resources as such. The simplest and most hooligan way is to "force" military units to leave a trail/road behind them. Which can be blocked, destroyed, etc. The questions, as always, will be with AI, obviously.
But this, of course, is for the distant bright future.

 

[<Nexus>]

I like the idea of limiting defense numbers but I prefer simple yet realistic solutions. So how about imitating that the unit tire out gradually instead of suddenly (can defend 3 times with full vigor than suddenly not?). Every time a unit defends its effective strength is decreased by 50%
So imagine a group of units: A (20) B (9 ) C (4 )
So A defends against the 1st and 2nd attack with effective of 20 than 10
Than B against the 3rd with an effective of 9
Than A again ( worth 5 )
Than B worth 4,5
And only than comes C with its 4

I hope my explanation is clear enough
I'm in the middle of a 12 our night shift and brain starts to slow down

 

[pecheneg]

Every time a unit defends its effective strength is decreased by 50%

It's a great idea, but in its current form it doesn't take into account the specifics of units of different classes. Perhaps your idea should be framed differently. I have two options.
1. Moderate. The special characteristic of the unit will not be the number of counterattacks, but a decrease in the effectiveness of the counterattack. That is, for example, for Very Heavy Infantry, the basic decrease in efficiency may be 15%, for light cavalry - 3%. And then, a coefficient is applied to these basic percentages, taking into account the difference in the "level" of units. As Кeldath suggested.
2. Radical and probably difficult. As a basic characteristic, a decrease in force is used with each "blow" during a skirmish. That is, if a unit kills or forces an opponent (no matter which one) to retreat with one blow, it gets tired very little. If he tinkers with an arbitrarily low-level unit for a long time, he gets noticeably tired. In this case, the "level" of the opponent, his "condition" (bonuses, already existing "wounds", etc.) and the course of the fight are taken into account "automatically".

P.S. Yes, I know that calling a unit "he" is infernal Russianism. But in context, in my opinion, it's easier to understand.

 

[keldath]

Hi guys,
Happy to see a nice decbate here

So taking from the above:

Each unit will have, attrition level. Defined in its xml. Around 3 per unit.

Each unit will have a tech rank. One which ill manually tag according to its tech availability.

When a unit is defended, each attack from a unit will deduct 1 attrition.
Each missing attrition will deduct 10% out of its combat when defending.

When a unit attacks vs a unit of lower tech rank, it will get 5% for each rank delta vs the defender.

How does that sound?

What about limitations on the attackers?
This will hinder defending units so i think there's need to be something towards it as well. Like attack points vs player.
A player can attack another player up to x times before the counter replenishes.

---
Fyi
I already have in the mod unit cap that is derived from the amount of a resource in the empire.
I updated it now for a cap per domain (3 iron will allow 20 units for each domain).

 

[<Nexus>]

What about limitations on the attackers?
This will hinder defending units so i think there's need to be something towards it as well. Like attack points vs player.
A player can attack another player up to x times before the counter replenishes.

I don't see the point. Units can attack only once without Blitz. And even with Blitz their strength and movement will deplete.

 

[keldath]

Humm,
If no handicap the attacker force:

30 stacked units attack a city
10 units defend the city

Without any of the above,
The 10, are able to fend of 15 units of the attacker.

With the attrition of defenders:
10 fend of 10 units
6 died due to lower combat force from attrition.

That make the defender weaker vs stacks of doom.
I wanna limit both in different ways.
The attrition is great.
Now lets find something for the attacking force.

 

[pecheneg]

When a unit is defended, each attack from a unit will deduct 1 attrition.
Each missing attrition will deduct

That is, fines begin only if the number of episodes of protection exceeds the limit? Hmm, yes, very reasonable. In the same weightlifting, the results do not start to fall after the first exercise. To be more precise, a well-warmed-up athlete works better.

When a unit attacks vs a unit of lower tech rank, it will get 5% for each rank delta vs the defender.

A strict effect of 5% will lead to too much success in the tactics of "throwing garbage at the champion" and the eternal problem of "civilization" such as "a crowd of guys with clubs clogs a tank." I would suggest such a formula.
So, TA is the technical level of the attacker, TD is the technical level of the defender. The actual formula. % = 10/ (TA – TD + 1). That is, with a difference in the technical level per unit, the final effect will be 10/2 = 5%. With a difference of two units, respectively, 10/3 = 3.3%. Etc.

What about limitations on the attackers?
This will hinder defending units so i think there's need to be something towards it as well. Like attack points vs player.
A player can attack another player up to x times before the counter replenishes.

Yes, the resource limitation of attacks will work. At the same time, even if both sides spend resources, and earlier than it seems. The most obvious:

1. The player leading the offensive is forced to either destroy fortifications or suffer very heavy losses during assaults.

2. At the same time, siege activity is resource-intensive in reality. With the age of gunpowder, everything is clear, and the nuance is that before ... everything is clear too.

a) large battering cores for stone throwers were not made from any stone underfoot and they were made with difficulty.
For example, one hundred catapult cores were found at the excavations of Artashat (the capital of ancient Armenia). At the same time, there are only six heavy ones – 4.5-6 kg, and they are either made of basalt or marble.

b) for more or less large siege engines, an equally specific tree was required

c) and for ancient siege equipment, there is also such a specific consumable material as high–strength and elastic bowstrings and ropes. And this is either a woman's hair or veins.

In general, the "price" of large pre-firearms artillery in vanilla "Civilization" is grossly underestimated. If you raise the costs and requirements to adequate ones, it will GREATLY complicate the life of the aggressor.
As for the field battles, there are... field fortifications as well, yes. In general, the list is not even options, but directions with different options is long. For now, it is probably worth limiting ourselves to the siege theme. Moreover, such a shift in the balance may be enough.

 

[keldath]

- good question, penalty is after the counter reshech 0 it gradually on each deduction.
- i like the TD formula, thanks.

- ok,so x number of attacks per player.
Based of some params, like resources.
Different attack costs per unit type, e.g. siege.

Didnt know that info on armenia, i like historical facts and discoveries. Thanks.

I wanna make a hood combat mechanics

 

[pecheneg]

i like the TD formula, thanks.

I'm glad that the formula came in handy .

Didnt know that info on armenia, i like historical facts and discoveries. Thanks.

You're welcome. There are quite a lot of works on early artillery and throwing machines on the Russian Internet for free, with just such entertaining details. If you ever need it, tell me.

I wanna make a hood combat mechanics

? It seems, I know English even worse than I think I do.

 

[keldath]

"It seems, I know English even worse than I think I do"
For my defence, i wrote from my phone )

Thank you friend.
Make me so happy there is a debate and suggestions for doto.

 

[pecheneg]

For my defence, i wrote from my phone )

I'm sorry, everything is difficult in my relationship with SMS too. And it's only a hidden penchant for BDSM that keeps us from getting divorced .

Thank you friend.

Make me so happy there is a debate and suggestions for doto.

Yes, I also really enjoyed our little brainstorming session.

 

[keldath]

same here,
feel free to throw ideas, feedback and all. ill work on our conclusions


--in the screen shots:
golden age from happiness
unit cap extended, limit per domain from total resources in the empire.

 

[keldath]

Heres an idea,
Units on enemy territory get attrition on every attack.
When max is reached, the units are jumping/auto moves to the nearest city.
Call it, routed units.

This will stop enemy snow ball on conquering a city ))

 

[<Nexus>]

Teleportation? No.

And it would only slow down the snow ball effect a bit, since those units can return one or two turns later.

 

[<Nexus>]

I have another cherished modcomp idea I wanna share with you (maybe I already did before?)

Here's a modcomp idea I have for quite some time. Please let me know if someone has already made something like this or is willing to do it.

Great Explorers

A new type of great person that rewards players for exploring the world. So it would not be born from points in cities but would need a new progress bar, similar to Great Generals.
Great Explorer Points (GEP) would come from exploring the map. When it reaches a threshold, the civ receives a Great Explorer in its capital, its current GEP is reset to 0 and the GEP threshold is increased one step for all civs.

GEP could be gained something like this:

• +4 for revealing a black land tile
• +1 for revealing a black water tile
• +x for discovering certain features (should be customizable to use with Natural Wonders)
• +100 for making contact with another civ.

Of course it should scale with map size and buildings, civics and traits should be able to affect GEP generations.

There was a discussion about it already.
Read more about it here:

Mod Component Requests Thread

I think the Civ4 n 5 mod has all of these features but im not sure.

forums.civfanatics.com

And an ability that a Great Explorer could do:

Make contact: Sacrifice the Great Explorer to make contact with an unknown civilization and boost initial relationship by +5.
(Maybe it shouldn't be a random foreign civ but the one whose capital is the closest to yours)

 

[Castor_Troy]

Good afternoon,
I had an ideea awhile back regarding this OP defender tanking all the weaker attackers never reached the sdk development phase as I stopped modding back then. In a real war the problem would be "stamina" I wanted called it, so every unit would have one ( changes based on promotion, traits, all of that). Example:
So it starts with a 20 stamina every fighting round costs 1 stamina every movement point spent costs 1 also. As each 10% stamina drops you would loose 5% combat str to a maximum of 50% total combat str (final number with all promotion, terrain, unit modifiers). Reason for 50% was also a variable in UnitInfo regarding Morale that would add the rest of the 50% penalty. ( Morale was related to lost/won battles dependency related to borders also, rest in cities, army commanders, hapiness level of city). Resting or healing would help replenish stamina and morale.
My mod was a medieval themed one, so i also wanted to add armor, armor piercing, different HP levels, ranged ap, ranged armor, pure damage.
A different ideea I integrated the city style of ck2 with a city focusing on either castle/temple/city for feudal realms, and wanted the rtw2 combat mechanics for units. Also the commander ideea( the one you mentioned from civ7) was on the list as Generals have a huge impact on armies they are assigned to.
Most of the other ideeas were very civ specifics trying to bring uniqueness to different cultures from the medieval period around the world. (Ex. A battle lost in foreign land for a norse realm would cost less morale then a Ayyubid defeat in foreign lands, simulating the raiding culture).
But the ones i talked about at the start were game mechanics related and i know I thought about some or even done some so maybe there is an ideea to salvage.

 

[ChrisLV]

I'm having an issue with unit combat animations. Specifically, they don't play (even though I don't have 'skip combat animations' ticked in game options). This doesn't occur with other mods. Any idea what might be causing this?

 

[f1rpo]

Just in case that it's an issue with the rearranged options screen (because I did that): Quick Attack and/or Quick Defense need to be unticked. No Combat Zoom is another option still (on the Graphics tab). Well, it's really the same situation on the original options screen. I did move Quick Moves (unrelated to combat animations iirc) to the Graphics tab, possibly that could cause confusion. If the options aren't the problem, then maybe animations were somehow broken by the latest update. I've only tried the older version of Doto that I have installed, probably one or two versions behind the latest release.