Era of Miracles fantasy mod - developer diary

[PawelS]

2011-10-29: Fixing the pipes

As predicted by some more experienced modders here, when constructing the tech tree I had problems with the tech pipes. But instead of the Smarter TechTree Pipes proposed by Sneaks, I used Alzara's fix. The difference is that Morlark's version makes the pipes go up or down right after the source tech, and I prefer when it's right before the destination tech.

 

[Ahriman]

Except racial flavor, there can be also flavor associated with individual units

Sure, but I think faction flavor is more important. If dwarves are super-productive *and* still mobile, then they might be too strong. A bonus yield from mine tiles is a huge advantage. But you should implement your idea and then see how it plays.

It's nice to use the Air unit mechanic for some "flying" units. If for no other reason, the mechanic is in place with functional AI.

Right. It fits eagles relatively well; it might also work well for some other units.

I guess I find the air unit mechanic makes flying units far more interesting than the helicopter mechanic, which I find quite dull.

I think its probably better though if each unit is either a ground unit that fights in melee, a ranged attacker, or an air unit; a unit that switches between the two is likely to be quite hard for the AI to handle. What we did for dragon units and the like is that they were a ground unit with flying, but also had an intercept chance (like AA guns) to give them some AA capability.

 

[orlanth]

I always like to see already existing mechanics getting used like this in unexpected ways. For example it would be possible to implement a sorceror unit that calls down eldritch fireballs on nearby cities using the Bomber mechanic; it would seem thematic and novel to players but the appropriate AI would already be there, avoiding all the problems with inability to use FfH spells.

While waiting for Civ5 DLL I've started an update for my scifi total conversion mod Colonization 2071; sorry for the offtopic plug but I wanted to ask any interested modders and modplayers to take a quick look and mention any playtest feedback you might have. I know not everyone owns Civ4Col, but it's now around $2 used on Amazon and is definitely worth a try for the significant differences from Civ.

v1.1 beta release:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=349050&page=6

Main forum thread:
http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?2101-MOD-Colonization-2071

 

[PawelS]

2011-10-30

Sure, but I think faction flavor is more important. If dwarves are super-productive *and* still mobile, then they might be too strong. A bonus yield from mine tiles is a huge advantage. But you should implement your idea and then see how it plays.

Well, I think double move in Forest is not a big advantage, when the unit has less movement and strength than the normal version (but, on the other hand, it won't require Horses to be built...)

Right. It fits eagles relatively well; it might also work well for some other units.

I guess I find the air unit mechanic makes flying units far more interesting than the helicopter mechanic, which I find quite dull.

Actually I prefer the helicopter mechanic, and I'm going to use it for most flying units. Aircraft mechanic doesn't follow the 1UPT rule, which is one of my favorite features in Civ5.

I think its probably better though if each unit is either a ground unit that fights in melee, a ranged attacker, or an air unit; a unit that switches between the two is likely to be quite hard for the AI to handle. What we did for dragon units and the like is that they were a ground unit with flying, but also had an intercept chance (like AA guns) to give them some AA capability.

Good idea, I can give some interception chance to some units (maybe even Archers should have it, at least as a possible promotion), but perhaps not to Dragons, they are too big to chase units like Eagles.

I always like to see already existing mechanics getting used like this in unexpected ways. For example it would be possible to implement a sorceror unit that calls down eldritch fireballs on nearby cities using the Bomber mechanic; it would seem thematic and novel to players but the appropriate AI would already be there, avoiding all the problems with inability to use FfH spells.

Hmm, what would be the difference between this and a ranged attack, except that such spells could be intercepted, which I don't think is a desired effect, so these units would have 100% evasion chance... unless we drop the idea of flying units using aircraft mechanic entirely, and use interceptions as "counterspells"... I don't think we can have both at the same time.

 

[Alzara]

2011-10-29: Fixing the pipes

As predicted by some more experienced modders here, when constructing the tech tree I had problems with the tech pipes. But instead of the Smarter TechTree Pipes proposed by Sneaks, I used Alzara's fix. The difference is that Morlark's version makes the pipes go up or down right after the source tech, and I prefer when it's right before the destination tech.

Hehe personal choice... I prefer at the end too

It makes it easier when techs require other techs that are more than one tier before them

Al

 

[Ahriman]

Aircraft mechanic doesn't follow the 1UPT rule, which is one of my favorite features in Civ5.

Isn't there an XML field that controls the number of aircraft that can be present in a city? I thought there was, and that it would be trivial to set that to 1 or 2 if you so desired.

I can give some interception chance to some units (maybe even Archers should have it, at least as a possible promotion)

In Warhammer we gave archers an interception chance too. This way, they had a dual role, as city defenders and as AA stack protectors (Civ4 mechanics, remember).
But there isn't much point in adding interception to archers though if you aren't really using air unit mechanics for more than a small handful of units.
In Civ4, air units got in free damage (a la Civ5 ranged bombardment) unless they were intercepted, so you had to add interception chances to have any chance of stopping them. In Civ5, air units get damaged when they strike, so making interception common would probably make air units too weak.

Hmm, what would be the difference between this and a ranged attack, except that such spells could be intercepted, which I don't think is a desired effect, so these units would have 100% evasion chance...

The differences are:
a) Units using the ranged attack mechanic are non-combat units and only exist inside of cities. Whereas ranged attack units, the AI will try and drag them around with their armies, and they are vulnerable to being attacked.
b) Units with airstrikes take damage from performing airstrikes. This is why it makes most sense for actual aerial units like pegasus riders and such who take casualties when they try to attack, rather than a wizard casting spells; why would the wizard get damaged?
The problem IMO with the helicopter mechanic is that the helicopter is too vulnerable to counterattack (its as vulnerable as any other unit unit). It seems bizarre that a group of swordsmen could possibly attack and defeat flying units if the flying units didn't want to engage.
[Though I guess you could give them move after attack so that they could move a few tiles way, but that risks advantaging the human player even more, since the AI doesn't do hit-and-run very well.]

I originally thought of a sorceror type guy as a ranged unit, but I think that would only make sense if they were some kind of air wizard who could fly or teleport between cities and if you think of their strength as some kind of mana limit, so that taking damage degraded their mana and they had to heal again after strikes.

So I can see any of the following (mutually exclusive) possible designs working:
i) Melee flying units (pegasus riders, griffons, etc.) are like fighters (moderate strength, airstrike and intercept and rebase missions), ranged flying units are like bombers (high strength, airstrike and rebase missions). Interception available as a specialist ranged unit promotion. Wizards just use ranged attacks.

ii) Flying units use helicopter mechanics. Wizards use ranged attack mechanics. Air unit mechanics not needed at all, except for a handful of very rare units that work like bombers. No need for interception mechanics.

iii) A particular class of wizards (conjurors?) use aerial bombardment mechanics. Their health is basically a mana pool; when they attack the pool gets reduced, they have to heal back up to recover mana. They function only in cities. The idea would be that they need some kind of summoning circle to work from, and can use magical gates to travel between cities in a single turn.
Other wizards could have an interception chance (like AA guns) that works as a magical defense.

 

[PawelS]

2011-10-31

Isn't there an XML field that controls the number of aircraft that can be present in a city? I thought there was, and that it would be trivial to set that to 1 or 2 if you so desired.

Hmm, I can't find anything like that in GlobalDefines.xml...

In Warhammer we gave archers an interception chance too. This way, they had a dual role, as city defenders and as AA stack protectors (Civ4 mechanics, remember).
But there isn't much point in adding interception to archers though if you aren't really using air unit mechanics for more than a small handful of units.
In Civ4, air units got in free damage (a la Civ5 ranged bombardment) unless they were intercepted, so you had to add interception chances to have any chance of stopping them. In Civ5, air units get damaged when they strike, so making interception common would probably make air units too weak.

I'm thinking about making it a promotion, to avoid the eagles getting intercepted by every single archer.

The differences are:
a) Units using the ranged attack mechanic are non-combat units and only exist inside of cities. Whereas ranged attack units, the AI will try and drag them around with their armies, and they are vulnerable to being attacked.
b) Units with airstrikes take damage from performing airstrikes. This is why it makes most sense for actual aerial units like pegasus riders and such who take casualties when they try to attack, rather than a wizard casting spells; why would the wizard get damaged?
The problem IMO with the helicopter mechanic is that the helicopter is too vulnerable to counterattack (its as vulnerable as any other unit unit). It seems bizarre that a group of swordsmen could possibly attack and defeat flying units if the flying units didn't want to engage.
[Though I guess you could give them move after attack so that they could move a few tiles way, but that risks advantaging the human player even more, since the AI doesn't do hit-and-run very well.]

In my vision of such units they can't fly all the time, and normally stand on the ground and can be attacked (move after attack is a good idea). That's why I'm going to limit the aircraft mechanic to birds and similar creatures...

I originally thought of a sorceror type guy as a ranged unit, but I think that would only make sense if they were some kind of air wizard who could fly or teleport between cities and if you think of their strength as some kind of mana limit, so that taking damage degraded their mana and they had to heal again after strikes.

So I can see any of the following (mutually exclusive) possible designs working:
i) Melee flying units (pegasus riders, griffons, etc.) are like fighters (moderate strength, airstrike and intercept and rebase missions), ranged flying units are like bombers (high strength, airstrike and rebase missions). Interception available as a specialist ranged unit promotion. Wizards just use ranged attacks.

ii) Flying units use helicopter mechanics. Wizards use ranged attack mechanics. Air unit mechanics not needed at all, except for a handful of very rare units that work like bombers. No need for interception mechanics.

iii) A particular class of wizards (conjurors?) use aerial bombardment mechanics. Their health is basically a mana pool; when they attack the pool gets reduced, they have to heal back up to recover mana. They function only in cities. The idea would be that they need some kind of summoning circle to work from, and can use magical gates to travel between cities in a single turn.
Other wizards could have an interception chance (like AA guns) that works as a magical defense.

My idea is that the eagles are like fighters, not bombers, so they can intercept other such units, but also can be used to attack ground units. Maybe there will be also bomber-like units, I'm not sure yet. For now, I'm not going to create aircraft-like mages, for me the mages as normal units with ranged attacks are the best solution.

Also, some helicopter-like units can have ranged attacks, which will allow them, for example, to fly over mountains and bombard the enemy units from there. Only ranged units and those that can move on mountains will be able to attack them.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm thinking about making it a promotion, to avoid the eagles getting intercepted by every single archer.

Ok, but be careful about making the eagles too weak. Remember, when the eagles are not intercepted, both the eagle and their target take damage (and the eagles will take a lot of damage if the target has high strength). If the eagles are intercepted, then only the eagles take damage. This would cut down on their value a lot. And while it is easy enough to see a distinctive AA gun unit, it can be hard to easily tell whether a given archer has an interception ability or not, so its hard for a player to tell whether an eagle strike would be intercepted or not.
Basically, I don't think interception is needed if there are only a handful of air units (and if they can't be massed) and if they are of modest strength.

My idea is that the eagles are like fighters, ...
For now, I'm not going to create aircraft-like mages, for me the mages as normal units with ranged attacks are the best solution.

That sounds fine.

Also, some helicopter-like units can have ranged attacks, which will allow them, for example, to fly over mountains and bombard the enemy units from there

I think this is not such a good idea, that kind of unit will be devastating in the hands of a human player against the AI but weak in the hands of the AI. The human player already gets a big advantage when using keshiks or camel archers; basically the only way the AI ever manages to kill those is if it happens to be able to blitz them with a mounted unit.
I would strongly advise against ranged attackers that can sit on mountains, they'll just be too hard for the AI to counter.
At the very minimum, such units would need to NOT have move-after-attack.

 

[PawelS]

2011-11-01

Ok, but be careful about making the eagles too weak. Remember, when the eagles are not intercepted, both the eagle and their target take damage (and the eagles will take a lot of damage if the target has high strength). If the eagles are intercepted, then only the eagles take damage. This would cut down on their value a lot. And while it is easy enough to see a distinctive AA gun unit, it can be hard to easily tell whether a given archer has an interception ability or not, so its hard for a player to tell whether an eagle strike would be intercepted or not.
Basically, I don't think interception is needed if there are only a handful of air units (and if they can't be massed) and if they are of modest strength.

Hmm, maybe all archers should have a small interception chance? And I don't think it will be only a handful of units, the eagles and the like should be quite common, while the helicopter-like flying units would require more advanced technologies and consume resources.

I think this is not such a good idea, that kind of unit will be devastating in the hands of a human player against the AI but weak in the hands of the AI. The human player already gets a big advantage when using keshiks or camel archers; basically the only way the AI ever manages to kill those is if it happens to be able to blitz them with a mounted unit.
I would strongly advise against ranged attackers that can sit on mountains, they'll just be too hard for the AI to counter.
At the very minimum, such units would need to NOT have move-after-attack.

I agree about no move-after-attack. Also (I just got this idea), they can have a range of 1, so archers can always strike back at them regardless of terrain obstacles. These should be rare units, I'm thinking about a flying ship (akin to the Air Galley in AoW) for the Dreamers civ. Spatzimaus wrote somewhere that it's possible to create units that can move both on land and water, I'll check his mod to see how to do it.

Perhaps I'll remove move-after-attack from Horse Archers, Camel Archers and the like as well, to prevent exploiting them against the AI...

 

[Ahriman]

Hmm, maybe all archers should have a small interception chance?

Maybe, we'd have to test it. If lots of eagles can get stacked up, it might be frustrating to fight against them if you can't get easy access to interception. Depends how powerful the ranged attack on the eagles are, I guess.

Also (I just got this idea), they can have a range of 1, so archers can always strike back at them regardless of terrain obstacles

Interesting, and worth testing. In general I suspect that the AI is going to be very bad at using a ranged attack unit with a range of 1, but on a moderate movement flying unit it might be ok.

Perhaps I'll remove move-after-attack from Horse Archers, Camel Archers and the like as well, to prevent exploiting them against the AI

The other possibility, which I would favor, is to dramatically reduce their strength.
The problem in vanilla is that they are a knight replacement, which is supposed to be a strong unit, and so the units still have pretty high strength. But you have the scope here to make them a supporting unit.

You can do interesting things by retaining move after attack but keeping combat strength low and making the ranged attack strength fairly low too. This changes the unit role; basically, it makes them skirmishers. They're only going to be able to do a moderate amount of damage, but when used property they can really keep out of the way. The problem with vanilla camel archers is that they can still 2-3 shot a powerful foot unit. Much more balanced if it takes more like 4-5 shots. That way it usually takes 2 turns to kill a full strength unit, and so they have a chance to retreat the unit and save it.
VEM did this somewhat with chariot archers; it gave them move-after-attack but reduced their strength.
[The other change that was made to keep this balanced was he changed things so that ranged units with blitz (including naval units) had to end their turn if they took a second shot, so you couldn't take 2 shots and still move.]

Another possibility is to have foot skirmisher units like slingers and peltasts; basically an archer but with move-after-attack but lower ranged attack value.

[Another change you might want to make: VEM doubles the hit points and damage of everything, so that you have 20 hit points rather than 10. This means that there is much more granularity in damage amounts (units can deal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. damage) and it means that the minimum damage is only 1/20th of maximum health, rather than 1/10th. This is particularly important when you have high strength units and low ranged attack units. Its a bit lame in vanilla that 5 CKN could kill a modern armor, because they deal 1 damage minimum each per shot and 2 shots per turn vs 10 hit points. Its better when very low strength units deal 1 damage per shot but vs 20 hit points.]

 

[human machine]

Interesting, and worth testing. In general I suspect that the AI is going to be very bad at using a ranged attack unit with a range of 1, but on a moderate movement flying unit it might be ok.

or you could put in a start of game Lua script, check if the Civ that gets the helicopter-like unit is the human. If it is, update the database with a range of 1, if its the AI, keep it at 2.

of course that only works if its unique to one or two Civs

 

[Ahriman]

or you could put in a start of game Lua script, check if the Civ that gets the helicopter-like unit is the human. If it is, update the database with a range of 1, if its the AI, keep it at 2.

Eh.... I kinda dislike the idea of having units that play by different rules depending on whether they are human or AI controlled. That is the kind of really explicit cheating that usually annoys players. Players usually prefer AI cheats that are harder to spot.

 

[PawelS]

2011-01-02

Maybe, we'd have to test it. If lots of eagles can get stacked up, it might be frustrating to fight against them if you can't get easy access to interception. Depends how powerful the ranged attack on the eagles are, I guess.

I'd prefer to limit their number per city, but I don't know how to do it. Maybe I'll make them national units, to limit their overall number (yes, I know it's 'artificial', but maybe it's the best solution).

Interesting, and worth testing. In general I suspect that the AI is going to be very bad at using a ranged attack unit with a range of 1, but on a moderate movement flying unit it might be ok.

Anyone tested how the AI handles units with 1 range? I think it's used in some mods...

The other possibility, which I would favor, is to dramatically reduce their strength.
The problem in vanilla is that they are a knight replacement, which is supposed to be a strong unit, and so the units still have pretty high strength. But you have the scope here to make them a supporting unit.

You can do interesting things by retaining move after attack but keeping combat strength low and making the ranged attack strength fairly low too. This changes the unit role; basically, it makes them skirmishers. They're only going to be able to do a moderate amount of damage, but when used property they can really keep out of the way. The problem with vanilla camel archers is that they can still 2-3 shot a powerful foot unit. Much more balanced if it takes more like 4-5 shots. That way it usually takes 2 turns to kill a full strength unit, and so they have a chance to retreat the unit and save it.
VEM did this somewhat with chariot archers; it gave them move-after-attack but reduced their strength.
[The other change that was made to keep this balanced was he changed things so that ranged units with blitz (including naval units) had to end their turn if they took a second shot, so you couldn't take 2 shots and still move.]

In this mod they won't be Knight replacement. There will be a Horse Archer unit (using Keshik graphics), replaced by Camel Archer for the Azracs, and perhaps by other units for some civs. Reducing their strength is a good option too.

Another possibility is to have foot skirmisher units like slingers and peltasts; basically an archer but with move-after-attack but lower ranged attack value.

The Halflings will have Slingers, giving them move after attack is an interesting idea.

[Another change you might want to make: VEM doubles the hit points and damage of everything, so that you have 20 hit points rather than 10. This means that there is much more granularity in damage amounts (units can deal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. damage) and it means that the minimum damage is only 1/20th of maximum health, rather than 1/10th. This is particularly important when you have high strength units and low ranged attack units. Its a bit lame in vanilla that 5 CKN could kill a modern armor, because they deal 1 damage minimum each per shot and 2 shots per turn vs 10 hit points. Its better when very low strength units deal 1 damage per shot but vs 20 hit points.]

I'll think about it... Maybe even I'll change the max HP to 100, if it doesn't cause any problems, it will be intuitive to see the HP as a percentage. Also it will allow more precise adjustments to healing rates, which should be much lower than in normal game...

 

[Spatzimaus]

Ahoy hoy. While my own computer is having some problems, I figured I'd take time off from working on my Mythology mod to comment on a couple things mentioned in here a couple days ago.

Well, I think double move in Forest is not a big advantage, when the unit has less movement and strength than the normal version (but, on the other hand, it won't require Horses to be built...)

Double move in forest isn't generally that strong, with three exceptions:
A> When you've added additional forests to the map generation for a "back to nature" sort of feel.
B> When you add some other way for forests and jungles to randomly spawn on certain terrain types when adjacent to existing forests/jungles, like in Civ4.
C> When you add a way for certain units to plant forests or jungles.

In my own mods, I've added a few units that can plant forests and jungles, and it makes a huge difference in the desirability of the Woodsman promotion when each civ can plant a border of forests to slow down invaders. In my future mod, it's something the Combat Engineer (basic Worker upgrade) gets, but in the mythology mod, the Dryad and Treant can plant these in the early eras. (Both are very limited units, though, so you won't be covering the entire continent.)

Actually I prefer the helicopter mechanic, and I'm going to use it for most flying units. Aircraft mechanic doesn't follow the 1UPT rule, which is one of my favorite features in Civ5.

I agree with you, helicopter-style is much better than bomber-style for most things. But there are even bigger reasons not to use the Air unit mechanic, besides just the stacking issue you mentioned; the biggest one is that, like submarines, Air units are balanced around a complex set of countermeasures (anti-air guns, fighters on intercept missions, etc.) that simply won't exist unless/until you add them. Unless you're willing to implement all of those countermeasures, make sure every civ has adequate access to them, AND make sure the AI knows to produce enough counter units mixed in with its normal forces, then it's just not worth it.
Integrating the counter with units the AI would already want to make helps tremendously here; in my AC mod I have a hybrid artillery/AA unit to ensure the AI has adequate numbers of both, but you can just as easily give all helicopter-type units an anti-air bonus to make a simple rock-paper-scissors sort of balance.

Air units do have some utility, though, if you want to represent things like "Zeus throwing lightning bolts". Basically, treat it like a Bomber and you're done; it'd be almost the same as adding a siege unit with really long range, except that it'd take a little damage each time it attacks and it couldn't leave the city. I've done that a couple times, effectively ignoring the need for any direct countermeasure units by design, and it's worked pretty well.

Anyone tested how the AI handles units with 1 range? I think it's used in some mods...

Fairly well in my experience, although it really depends on the mobility of the unit, whether the unit can move after attacking, and whether or not the unit is allowed to make melee attacks. In my Alpha Centauri mod the Vertol (upgrade of helicopter) has a range-1 attack, which just means that when it would normally make a melee attack, it'll do this instead and take no damage. It's a very effective mechanic for adding skirmisher units.
(Side note: the other benefit of having a ranged attack is that you automatically take less damage when attacked by someone else's ranged attacks. On the other hand, Cover promotions work against you. So it's not just a straight melee replacement, balancewise, even before considering that your unit would need Accuracy/Barrage instead of Drill/Shock.)

The only real catch is that the AI has no planning ability. So if your skirmisher unit starts the turn immediately adjacent to a foe, it WILL make the ranged attack (because it sees no downside), even if the smarter move would be to move away and hit some other unit instead. If the unit can move after attacking then it's not so bad; the AI will still take that first shot, but will then move the unit to a more defensible spot.
Similarly, if the attack is short-ranged, then a human would know to use this unit fairly early in the turn, while the AI might process other units first and by the time it's this unit's turn it just can't reach any remaining enemies. That's why I mentioned movement above; the more mobility you give these units, the better the AI handles them. (Again, skirmisher units.)
And the comment I made about melee attacks? The AI, in general, will not use a melee attack with a ranged unit, even if it's not limited to only ranged attacks. So if you give the unit a melee strength equal to its ranged strength, then a human will know that there are certain times to use each, but the AI will continue to only bombard.

 

[Ahriman]

Spoiler :

maybe I'll make them national units, to limit their overall number (yes, I know it's 'artificial', but maybe it's the best solution).

Alternatively, a strategic resource unit, so that if you claim more territory you can get more units. I think that is better than hardcoded national limits.
In Warhammer, we had a "breeding grounds" strategic resource that was needed for trolls, giants, etc. and an "aerie" strategic resource that was needed for eagles, griffons, harpies, etc.

Alternatively, you can balance them by changing their strength and range, or through interception. If they are low strength, then they will probably be most useful in trying to finish off weak units that are protected by others, rather than being an effective unit to throw against high strength units.

In this mod they won't be Knight replacement. There will be a Horse Archer unit (using Keshik graphics), replaced by Camel Archer for the Azracs, and perhaps by other units for some civs. Reducing their strength is a good option too.

Right, exactly.
I would probably also block access to a horse archer at all for many civs, or give them weakened. Dwarves shouldn't have horse archers, traditional europeans might have only a mounted crossbow (which lacks move after attack) and greco-roman archons might have only a chariot archer (with lower strength) and others might only have mercenary or auxiliary horse archers. Horse archer access and aerial unit access might be nice ways of encouraging the factions to play differently from each other on the battlefield, which I think should be a major mod goal of a fantasy mod. There can be raider races, horde races, weak meatshield + expensive elite races, slow siege races, mounted races, hit-and-run races, etc.

The Halflings will have Slingers, giving them move after attack is an interesting idea.

To me, move after attack on a 2 move unit makes them interestingly different from regular archers. They'd have lower strength than archers though.

I'll think about it... Maybe even I'll change the max HP to 100, if it doesn't cause any problems, it will be intuitive to see the HP as a percentage

Interesting idea. I'll think about it too.

Also it will allow more precise adjustments to healing rates, which should be much lower than in normal game

I'd be careful about reducing heal rates too much, particularly if cleric units can boost them significantly. The human player can understand how to position medic units well, the AI doesn't. [Though, low healing rate in general tends to favor the AI, which can mass more troops with production bonuses, rather than efficiently using a few and healing them.] So there are multiple balance forces in tension here, which could be tricky to get right.

But there are even bigger reasons not to use the Air unit mechanic, besides just the stacking issue you mentioned; the biggest one is that, like submarines, Air units are balanced around a complex set of countermeasures (anti-air guns, fighters on intercept missions, etc.) that simply won't exist unless/until you add them.

I don't think it is that hard to design an integrated system.

Fairly well in my experience, although it really depends on the mobility of the unit, whether the unit can move after attacking, and whether or not the unit is allowed to make melee attacks.

Good to hear.

Side note: the other benefit of having a ranged attack is that you automatically take less damage when attacked by someone else's ranged attacks

Doesn't this only work if the ranged attack value is higher than the unit's base strength?
So, a strength 12 unit would take the same damage as a strength 8 ranged attack 12 units.

but will then move the unit to a more defensible spot

That is good to hear.

while the AI might process other units first and by the time it's this unit's turn it just can't reach any remaining enemies

Yeah, this is a worry, the AI in general is really bad at managing congestion.

The AI, in general, will not use a melee attack with a ranged unit, even if it's not limited to only ranged attacks. So if you give the unit a melee strength equal to its ranged strength, then a human will know that there are certain times to use each, but the AI will continue to only bombard.

For this reason I would tend to never create a unit with both a ranged and melee attack.

 

[PawelS]

2011-11-03

I feel honored that the Great Modder himself posted in my thread

Double move in forest isn't generally that strong, with three exceptions:
A> When you've added additional forests to the map generation for a "back to nature" sort of feel.
B> When you add some other way for forests and jungles to randomly spawn on certain terrain types when adjacent to existing forests/jungles, like in Civ4.
C> When you add a way for certain units to plant forests or jungles.

In my own mods, I've added a few units that can plant forests and jungles, and it makes a huge difference in the desirability of the Woodsman promotion when each civ can plant a border of forests to slow down invaders. In my future mod, it's something the Combat Engineer (basic Worker upgrade) gets, but in the mythology mod, the Dryad and Treant can plant these in the early eras. (Both are very limited units, though, so you won't be covering the entire continent.)

I'm not going to increase the amount of Forests when generating a map (but there will be more Jungles). New Forests will grow but only for the Elves civ, the Dwarves which will have the Boar Rider won't have this ability. But of course the Elven units will have double move in forest too (at least some of them).

About units with both melee and ranged attack: Is there a possibility in the UI to use them as melee? I thought when you target an enemy unit with a ranged unit, it always uses the ranged attack...

I would probably also block access to a horse archer at all for many civs, or give them weakened. Dwarves shouldn't have horse archers, traditional europeans might have only a mounted crossbow (which lacks move after attack) and greco-roman archons might have only a chariot archer (with lower strength) and others might only have mercenary or auxiliary horse archers. Horse archer access and aerial unit access might be nice ways of encouraging the factions to play differently from each other on the battlefield, which I think should be a major mod goal of a fantasy mod. There can be raider races, horde races, weak meatshield + expensive elite races, slow siege races, mounted races, hit-and-run races, etc.

Yes, I like the idea that not all civs should have access to the Horse Archer. The Archons will have an improved version of the Chariot instead, and some other civs can have no access to such units at all. The availability of different units for different civs isn't fully determined yet.

To me, move after attack on a 2 move unit makes them interestingly different from regular archers. They'd have lower strength than archers though.

Yes, they should be weaker than Archers. Also they will have a withdrawal chance, like other Halfling units.

Interesting idea. I'll think about it too.

You're making a mod?

I'd be careful about reducing heal rates too much, particularly if cleric units can boost them significantly. The human player can understand how to position medic units well, the AI doesn't. [Though, low healing rate in general tends to favor the AI, which can mass more troops with production bonuses, rather than efficiently using a few and healing them.] So there are multiple balance forces in tension here, which could be tricky to get right.

Using clerics to heal units is one of the key design decisions in this mod, so it seems I'll have to accept the fact that the AI isn't good at it. Maybe there is a way to increase the healing rates for the AI only?

Doesn't this only work if the ranged attack value is higher than the unit's base strength?
So, a strength 12 unit would take the same damage as a strength 8 ranged attack 12 units.

I'm not sure how it works, but it seems the ranged strength is used as defense against ranged attacks. I don't like it, and I hope there is a way to fix it (although I'm afraid it will require the DLL access).

 

[Spatzimaus]

About units with both melee and ranged attack: Is there a possibility in the UI to use them as melee? I thought when you target an enemy unit with a ranged unit, it always uses the ranged attack...

The right-click defaults to ranged attack if you have one, but you can still manually click the "attack" button on the left side of the screen to perform a melee attack, even if the unit has a ranged attack it could use instead.

Now, in vanilla civ, nearly every unit with a ranged attack also has the "Only Defensive" promotion, which prevents it from making melee attacks. Once upon a time, archers didn't have this, which allowed you to use them to capture cities once the HP had been whittled down, but a few patches back the devs added that promotion to them and boosted the combat ratings of most siege units. But you don't have to do this in your own content; my AC mod, for instance, has quite a few units with ranged attacks that can also make melee attacks. (All of the Titans, for instance.)

I'm not sure how it works, but it seems the ranged strength is used as defense against ranged attacks.

No, regular Combat is used as the defense against ranged attacks. That's why archers and stuff have Combat ratings as well as Ranged Combat ratings, while air units don't. If you were to give an air unit a combat rating, it'd screw up all sorts of things, like the unit stacking and garrison rules.

What I was referring to is that there's a parameter (I think in Global Defines) that specifies a bonus ranged units get when defending against other ranged units. I think it's +50%, but it's easy enough to look up. (My own machine is dead, so I can't look it up for you.)

 

[PawelS]

I think I found it, it's called RANGE_ATTACK_RANGED_DEFENDER_MOD, and defaults to 125. So it's not as bad as I thought (I thought the Combat rating on ranged units is used only to defend against melee attacks), probably I'll leave the current value, unless testing proves that it should be changed.

 

[Ahriman]

You're making a mod?

No, no, just thinking about the implications. I really don't have the technical skills to make a mod. Thats why I just pester other people who know what they're doing, and try to provide ideas and feedback

I think it is very problematic to have units with both ranged and melee attacks; the AI can't use them properly, and they're annoying MM for the human player since you have to manually attack with them each time.

I also would be very wary about changing the ranged attack defense modifier. Ranged attack units already have low strength, if you start changing the modifier they are going to become super-vulnerable to ranged and aircraft attacks.

 

[Spatzimaus]

I think I found it, it's called RANGE_ATTACK_RANGED_DEFENDER_MOD, and defaults to 125.

That's the one. It's not nearly enough of a bonus to make archers defend as well as swordsmen, but it keeps them from being quite so pathetic against bombardment (since their low Combat rating would make them easy targets otherwise).

I think it is very problematic to have units with both ranged and melee attacks; the AI can't use them properly, and they're annoying MM for the human player since you have to manually attack with them each time.

Depends on what the unit's supposed to be. If you make a unit with a high bombardment and a low melee attack, then the AI handles it just fine, regardless of whether it has that melee attack or not. If you make a unit with a low bombardment and a high Combat rating, then it's a bit tougher, since the AI will still generally prefer to use the ranged attacks, but even there it's not too bad in my experience; I've had a couple units like that for a while now. The only real difference having the melee attack gives? Capturing workers/settlers and capturing cities, and in my experience the AI's capable of doing those just fine.

The UI limitation requiring manual attacks hurts the PLAYER, not the AI. And really, it's only a problem for the player if he isn't aware of the possibility of units having both types of attacks. Vanilla Civ5 allowed this with archers for almost a year before changing it, so most players should already have been aware of this issue.

Ranged attack units already have low strength, if you start changing the modifier they are going to become super-vulnerable to ranged and aircraft attacks.

You've got it backwards. The 125 is the DEFENDER's bonus, so raising it to 150, for instance, would make ranged units even LESS vulnerable to bombardment, not more.

A Crossbow has a Ranged Combat of 12, and a Combat of 6. If one crossbow fires at another, the game currently treats it as 12-vs-7.5 (before adding promotions, which in the case of ranged units only benefit the attacker). Raising it to 150 would mean 12-vs-9.

Besides, just because the devs have put in the Combat = RangedCombat/2 trend for the existing units doesn't mean you have to follow their example. Make a crossbow-equivalent unit with Combat 10, Ranged Combat 10 (instead of 6/12), and what do you have? A unit whose attack is a little weaker but who is much harder to kill. Give it a melee attack as well, and it can do some things a normal crossbow can't, like capture cities. I've done this sort of thing a couple times in my mods, and it's worked pretty well.