Feedback: Units

[Xyth]

Okay, question: What happens if, say, you already have two missionaries with number three building at 79/80, then use both the existing ones and drop the cost of the one in production back down to 40? Standard overflow like you get after whipping something or constructing a building / wonder in a Traditional capital?

I haven't tested it, but I would assume so.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I cannot make the cap scale with mapsize (well, I can, but it would be a not insignificant performance hit). However, in the corporations thread Boggy pointed out that I can make unit production cost increase the more of that unit that currently exist. So, for example, the first missionary you build might cost 40, the next one 60, then 80, and so on (Base Cost + 20*number of currently active missionaries). This could be in addition to a hard cap, or without one.

I'm considering using this mechanic for both missionaries and executives. What do you think?

If the AI can sometimes get caught in a spamming loop, this solution will only punish them further. That might indeed be the ultimate reason[/I ] for the hard cap.

If you choose this solution, then I would like the costs to not increase so radically. Say 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 rather than 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140 . A hard cap of 6 for all mapsizes would satisfy me.

However, I don't like this mechanic as it leads to weird effects: I start building a 6th Missionary whilst 5 others are in transit. It costs 90. The next turn the 5 do their work and vanish. Does the cost of my new Missionary suddenly drop to 40? What happens then if I had already invested 45 in that Missionary? If the cost doesn't drop, how much should my next build cost? 100? 40? How do you keep track of that? The situation becomes complex if multiple Missionaries are in build queues --- which one now costs what?

Kludgy solution: Don't do this. Implement a hard cap of 6 for all mapsizes ...

 

[Eucalyptus]

In an HR1.18 game, I've now finally had the chance to use the Colonist and I like it! The balance of buildings is very nice.

Side effects:

• The time that it would take to otherwise construct the Colonist's buildings on some settlement locations (think one-tile oceanic islands!) means that it is probably better to wait for the Colonist (possibly paying to upgrade Settlers) for such locations. That is gamey but I quite like it.
  
  
• The availability of the Colonist creates a dilemma when capturing a small/building-poor city: It is probably better to raze such a city and settle a Colonist there. But that costs diplomatic points and population and leaves a nasty aftertaste of ethnic cleanser. Receive the same small city as a gift/conciliation and you can't use a Colonist without some complex shenanigans --- such as gift it, declare war, raze it.

To address these issues, it would be nice if the Colonist could also `settle' in an existing (small?) city, but I imagine that that is out of the question.

An alternative is to replace the Colonist with a Supply Caravan unit that itself doesn't settle but bears the same number of --- the player could use these for whatever they liked, which would be in many cases the buildings of the existing Colonist. The unit could use the same art. To ensure that this didn't lead to stockpiling, the use of a Supply Caravan could create a (possibly fake) building (perhaps a Caravanserai? ) whose presence ensures that no further Supply Caravans could be unloaded. Supply Caravans should be captureable!

Ideas?

 

[Simon_Jester]

In an HR1.18 game, I've now finally had the chance to use the Colonist and I like it! The balance of buildings is very nice.

Side effects:

• The time that it would take to otherwise construct the Colonist's buildings on some settlement locations (think one-tile oceanic islands!) means that it is probably better to wait for the Colonist (possibly paying to upgrade Settlers) for such locations. That is gamey but I quite like it.

• Not necessarily gamey.
  
  A lot of places where today we have major cities were not colonized by city-building peoples until fairly late. We have cities in swamps where it took modern technology to stabilize the ground. We have cities on isolated islands that were 'town/village' sized until modern shipping allowed us to feed a city that swelled to cover the whole island. We have cities which used to be fur trapping centers until a railroad allowed people to move cargo in and out at a useful rate.
  
  Not every major city in the world was all that impressive in the Iron Age.
  
  

  [*]The availability of the Colonist creates a dilemma when capturing a small/building-poor city: It is probably better to raze such a city and settle a Colonist there. But that costs diplomatic points and population and leaves a nasty aftertaste of ethnic cleanser. Receive the same small city as a gift/conciliation and you can't use a Colonist without some complex shenanigans --- such as gift it, declare war, raze it.

As-historical; this is exactly what happened to a lot of civilizations that wound up on the wrong end of colonization in the Age of Imperialism.

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but then so does launching a nuclear first strike to soften up an enemy in the modern era... which is totally an option.

I like the supply caravan idea, though. As so often the case, the big problems are:
1) Hard to teach the AI to use it
2) Easy to exploit: your early cities grow to useful size before Caravans become available, and then you can use your one-shot Caravan unit to accelerate production of a Wonder. Which I for one don't mind, since that's exactly how Caravans were used in Civ II, but it's not a part of vanilla or HR Civ IV.

 

[inasnapp]

One problem I have is that IRL, air cavalry (and in general, air-deployable light infantry) have totally replaced 'true' paratroops that leap out of airplanes. Once helicopters were invented, the incentive to use risky, costly paradrops to land troops in enemy territory really shrank.

Good point. This also opens up the possibility that paratroopers upgrade to air cav. Then they can both 'paradrop' or move into enemy territory

 

[Simon_Jester]

Can paratroops move after a paradrop? In that case, moving like a helicopter AND paradropping would be very overpowered. Otherwise, that just might be crazy enough to work.

Anyway, these days we mostly use parachutes to land commando units; mass parachute assaults still occur, but I think the US is the only nation that has a division-sized force dedicated to the role, and it hasn't all done the same paradrop in a LOOONG time.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I like the supply caravan idea, though. As so often the case, the big problems are:
...
2) Easy to exploit: your early cities grow to useful size before Caravans become available, and then you can use your one-shot Caravan unit to accelerate production of a Wonder. Which I for one don't mind, since that's exactly how Caravans were used in Civ II, but it's not a part of vanilla or HR Civ IV.

If a Supply Caravan came at the same point in history as the current Colonist (Urban Planning, Renaissance), whilst the hammers could be used as a boost to Wonder production, they certainly wouldn't allow completion --- the later Wonders are simply too expensive. Moreover, for the remaining hammers, a late-settled city will always remain a poorer location for a Wonder than an old, large, highly-developed city.

I'm not very serious about a Supply Caravan unit: It begs the immediate question: Why does it only become available in Renaissance times? Why can't it be built in every Eras, at different costs/benefits?

 

[kiwitt]

Thoughts on a modern navy:

Ship design. Upgrade ships? Conversions were and still are still fairly unique. Hulls and basic mission design don't change much and once you build the hull, you have pretty much “hardwired” the basic ship's characteristics. Ships systems are upgraded e.g. missiles for guns but the basic cruiser is still a cruiser, BB a BB, battle cruiser [BC] a battle cruiser, etc. Speed was one of the primary ship design considerations and a primary consideration when deciding if a ship class was “obsolete”.

Might consider sticking with basic classes and using promotions to differentiate between types within class. The entire ship design process starting around WWI was predicated on screening BB's. A sort of spider to catch the fly design process. Subs sink BB's … build DE's. Torpedo boats sink BB's … build Destroyers. Destroyers also launch torpedos … build light cruisers. Build Cruisers, tinker with BC's. But still, Bbs are the centerpiece.

CV/ CVA/ CVE

Aircraft carriers represent a paradigm changing ship class. Not until it was realized that aircraft could better replace surface guns was the concept firmly established. If the Japanese hadn't sunk or damaged most of the Pacific Fleet BB's and missed the CV's at Pearl Harbor, it might have taken the US another 2 or 3 years to replace the BB by putting the CV at the center of the battle group.

Since aircraft carriers adopted a cruiser hull design [WWI-WWII] they represent the only major class that was produced by “upgrades”. The remaining classes were pretty much “purpose built”. Armored CV decks were first employed by the RN. Many US CV's still lacked armored decks as late as 1944. The armored deck greatly increased the ships ability to sustain damage from aerial bombs and still operate. Wood deck ships were generally put out of action if hit by bombs because of fires started in the hangar deck.

CVE's were another reactive answer to the sub problem. Aircraft turned out to be invaluable in managing the sub threat in WWII and providing at least minimal air escort for smaller task groups.

LPH/ LPA/ LPD

First you need marines, then you need helos, then the carrier “invents itself” as a logical next step. Before that, the transport ships did the job [attack transport ship APA] ... became LPA when helos arrived.

CA / CL/ armored-protected cruiser

Cruiser design changed to adapt to better naval guns, oil fired propulsion systems, and armor piercing shells. Hence the “protected cruiser”. Once again a “purpose built” designs since the basic earlier cruisers and CL designs could not accommodate the extra weight of the necessary armor or heavier guns.

BC

The basic BC design was intended to defeat anything of lesser caliber weaponry or out run anything that outgunned it. The BC “flaw” became apparent when Beatty engaged battleships at Jutland. So while the HMS Hood continued to be a centerpiece of the RN, naval treaty compliance and a strategy rethink resulted in future ships construction focused on BB's and CA's. Germany in an effort to circumvent the naval treaties, continued with a form of BC design, the so called pocket battleship. Unique to GE.

BB

Conceptually not much different than the Line of Battle ship of the age of sail. The centerpiece of the fleets. Continually improved in speed, range, size and effectiveness of the guns. BB screening requirements or need for lower cost substitutes drove the design of other ship classes.

FF / FFG

The Frigate class is probably the most misused classification after the age of sail. I would recommend deletion of the class especially for WWI and WWII. Its missions from the days of sail were transferred to DD, DDE, and to CA and CL classes. Not until missiles replaced guns did the term Frigate come back into use as a lower cost escort ship with missiles replacing guns.

DD/ DDE

Should pretty much cover all the needs to represent small ship classes in the game. Given various promotions, they can represent the remaining combatant classes including those devoted to mine warfare. Might consider the use of special promotions for transports to make them mine layers.

SS

Again, promotions should pretty much allow distinguishing the difference in the various classes. Until the SSN / SSGN/ SSBN arrive. The SSG although first employed in WWII, was not a major ship class but a significant step toward the SSGN/ SSBN.

General comments:

Modern ship designs are only a variation on traditional missions modified by technology and cost avoidance strategies.

Significant technologies:

Impact ship design and naval operations once steam engines and “screws” became the propulsion method:

Wireless/ radio communication
Shells, armor piercing shells
armor
Torpedo
coal to oil fuels
mechanical and electro-mechanical computers for fire control [so called fire control clocks and tables]
cryptology
aviation
radar/ radar directed gunnery
proximity fuse
armored CV deck
combat information centers afloat
Electronic Computers
Nuclear propulsion systems and weapons
Guided Missiles
Artificial intelligence

FNP (Former Navy Pilot) was a significant contributor to the accuracy of my RTW version.

Please consider his comments carefully in the development of all things "Naval"

 

[Simon_Jester]

Essentially all this information was in my mind when I made my own suggestions regarding the naval tree. For a tree that covers only the World War era, you can make finer distinctions. Upgrades can be used to represent things like refitting ships with better gunnery radar and AA weapons (which did happen). You can play around with having a host of different unit types, and so on.

In the main game we're more limited; it's basically impossible to find useful niches for more than 3-6 ship types at a time in a given era, and impractical to have dozens and dozens of naval units spread across history.

Also, 'normal' Civ has a grand strategic focus on which the difference between an AEGIS cruiser, a Kirov, and an Iowa with Tomahawk launchers really isn't very relevant, even though it matters hugely in real life. Likewise the difference between battleships and battlecruisers, or DDs and DEs.

 

[inasnapp]

Can paratroops move after a paradrop? In that case, moving like a helicopter AND paradropping would be very overpowered. Otherwise, that just might be crazy enough to work.

Do they? I don't think they do. Regardless Air Cav shouldn't be able to, since they would be overpowered.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I've recently been able to use Labourers for the first time (in a HR1.18 game). I tried to allow one to "join a city". The Labourer disappeared but the city's population didn't increase. Is this a bug or have I missed something?

 

[Eucalyptus]

I remember seeing promotions and experience for spies in another mod. I forget which mod (!) but it might have been Pie's Ancient Europe, and, perhaps it was an incorporation of the mod Super Spies? I don't know its origin, but I enjoyed it!

Is it worthwhile to incorporate this into HR?

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

I've recently been able to use Labourers for the first time (in a HR1.18 game). I tried to allow one to "join a city". The Labourer disappeared but the city's population didn't increase. Is this a bug or have I missed something?

It doesn't increase population. It gives you a free citizen specialist.

 

[Xyth]

I remember seeing promotions and experience for spies in another mod. I forget which mod (!) but it might have been Pie's Ancient Europe, and, perhaps it was an incorporation of the mod Super Spies? I don't know its origin, but I enjoyed it!

Is it worthwhile to incorporate this into HR?

The Super Spies mod requires a custom DLL, ruling it out of inclusion in HR. I don't see a similar mechanic in PAE.

 

[Eucalyptus]

The Super Spies mod requires a custom DLL, ruling it out of inclusion in HR. I don't see a similar mechanic in PAE.

That's a pity!

 

[kiwitt]

Would it be possible to give all 1900 or later (i.e. modern era) units a base chance to intercept aircraft.

So take this value

<iInterceptionProbability>[B]0[/B]</iInterceptionProbability>

and change it

<iInterceptionProbability>[B]1[/B]</iInterceptionProbability>

or higher.

This means you can then add interception promotions. Set at "0" they do not get this promotion offered.

This will reflect the addition of more attached anti-air units to a particular unit or the upgrading of ships with more anti-air gunnery, later in their service.

 

[Howard Mahler]

You could change the additional requirement for Ships of the Line from Gunpowder to Firearms, so as to provide more space between the ability to build Frigates and Ships of the Line.

 

[Nightstar]

Work Boats probably shouldn't be classified as military units for purposes of things like the Warrior Code civic and Heroic Epic.

 

[tchristensen]

Would like to see bi-planes added in the next installment. Perhaps at the same tech period as dirigibles. There are some very cool cultural models out there for bi-plane fighters and even bombers. Also consider increasing the total damage potential for aircraft -- perhaps a game changer, but aircraft should be able to sink ships? counter the ship sinking with allowing Intercepting with ships and mechanical infantry/Cannon?

Also would like to see trenches (there are couple of nice graphics for that including pillboxes) that advanced workers could create -- perhaps acting like a fort but with a greater defensive value.

Lastly, Flame throwers or chemical weapons? I know there are some models out there as well that can do this. Devastating weapons in World War I and II.

 

[Yudishtira]

WWII fighter-bombers (fighters not bombers in game terms, interestingly/oddly enough) sank ships, but not WWI afaik. And I only know of carriers (could be mistaken of course) that were sunk - no cruisers or battleships: I assume they got some destroyers.
The Bismarck might've been finished off by torp bombers (or might not I'm not sure), but she was already pretty far gone.

And ships in port should be easier to sink, rather than impossible due to all the land units getting in the way of the bombs...