Feedback: Units

Well, I'd like to hear what Xyth thinks of all this- I favor the system I've just described, but if artwork is a huge issue then such is life.

I'm surprised Realism Invictus doesn't have torpedo boats, though, given how many other kinds of naval units it has.
 
I like the idea of Ironclads becoming an ocean-going vessel and I think the Torpedo Boat works well as a the new industrial coastal defense boat. It does mean quite a long gap between the Galleass (early Renaissance) and the Torpedo Boat (mid-Industrial) but I don't think it's a major issue. I found some Torpedo Boat art, I think it's Hungarian (Elster?) but it looks vaguely similar to the 1876 HMS Lightning. I don't there's really room for any sort of Pre-dreadnought ship, that role is already well covered by the Cruiser and the era just doesn't last long enough to fit more in.

Here's my first attempt at scaling the stats of naval units a bit more smoothly:


Galley: Str 2, Move 2, Cost 50, Cargo 2, cannot enter Ocean
Trireme: Str 3, Move 2, Cost 50, cannot enter Ocean

Dromon: Str 5, Move 3, Cost 60, cannot enter Ocean
Cog: Str 3, Move 3, Cost 60, Cargo 2, cannot enter Ocean
Caravel: Str 3, Move 3, Cost 60, Cargo 1 (special)

Galleass: Str 8, Move 3, Cost 70, +50% Coast attack, cannot enter Ocean
Galleon: Str 6, Move 4, Cost 80, Cargo 3
Privateer: Str 10, Move 4, Cost 90, hidden nationality, can attack without declaring war
Frigate: Str 12, Move 4, Cost 100
SotL: Str 15, Move 3, Cost 120, 8% bombard

Ironclad: Str 18, Move 3, Cost 150, 12% bombard
Clipper: Str 10, Move 5, Cost 100, Cargo 3
Torpedo Boat: Str 18, Move 4, Cost 150, 1 first strike, +50% Coast attack, cannot enter Ocean
Cruiser: Str 30, Move 6, Cost 200, 16% bombard
Transport: Str 16, Move 5, Cost 150, Cargo 4

Battleship: Str 40, Move 5, Cost 240, 20% bombard, 60% collateral damage
Destroyer: Str 24, Move 8, Cost 200, 30% Intercept, can detect Submarines, +50% attack vs Submarines
Submarine: Str 24, Move 6, Cost 180, holds 3 Missiles, can detect Submarines, 50% withdrawal
Attack Sub: Str 30, Move 7, Cost 220, Cargo 1 (special), Invisible, can detect Submarines, 50% withdrawal, +50% vs Submarines
Missile Cruiser: Str 40, Move 7, Cost 280, 20% bombard, 60% collateral damage, holds 4 Missiles
Stealth Destroyer: Str 30, Move 8, Cost 250, 2 first strikes, stealthed, can detect stealth ships


Upgrade paths are:

Galley ---> Cog ---> Galleon ---> Clipper ---> Transport
Trireme ---> Dromon ---> Galleass ---> Torpedo Boat ---> Destroyer ---> Stealth Destroyer
Caravel ---> Frigate OR Privateer
Frigate/Privateer/SotL ---> Ironclad ---> Cruiser ---> Missile Cruiser
Battleship ---> Missile Cruiser


Feedback welcome.
 
I like the idea of Ironclads becoming an ocean-going vessel and I think the Torpedo Boat works well as a the new industrial coastal defense boat. It does mean quite a long gap between the Galleass (early Renaissance) and the Torpedo Boat (mid-Industrial) but I don't think it's a major issue. I found some Torpedo Boat art, I think it's Hungarian (Elster?) but it looks vaguely similar to the 1876 HMS Lightning. I don't there's really room for any sort of Pre-dreadnought ship, that role is already well covered by the Cruiser and the era just doesn't last long enough to fit more in.
A perfect candidate, the Elster is:

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/models/ships/SMS_Elster/

Now, if you decide to create unique naval art for various nations (some nations, anyway), you could use 'predreadnought' art in place of the cruiser for various nations. Predreadnoughts of the Victorian era didn't look that different from armored cruisers, they were just bigger and hairier. Wouldn't recommend doing it for Russia, mind you, because the existing art is a Russian cruiser (the same class as Avrora, which now sits in Saint Petersburg as a memorial ship because of its role at the Battle of Tsushima and, especially, the Soviet Revolution).

Torpedo Boat: Str 18, Move 4, Cost 150, 1 first strike, +50% Coast attack, cannot enter Ocean
Hmmm. This makes torpedo boats more powerful than destroyers, at least in the TBs' home waters. Maybe destroyers should get their bonus against submarines and torpedo boats; that's what they were invented to fight in the first place after all.

Also, I think torpedo boats should be fast- it lends itself to hit-and-run tactics in coastal waters (say, against a naval stack that's not directly off the coast of one of your cities), and segues a bit more neatly into the destroyer, which is in most other ways a very different ship.

Submarine: Str 24, Move 6, Cost 180, holds 3 Missiles, can detect Submarines, 50% withdrawal
I do not approve of normal submarines being able to detect other submarines. Attack subs yes, that's in large part what they were invented for, but 'standard' submarines which reflect first things like World War era U-boats and later ballistic missile submarines are not good at spotting subs.

Stealth Destroyer: Str 30, Move 8, Cost 250, 2 first strikes, stealthed, can detect stealth ships
Aiii! It burns! It burns!

No, seriously, I just have a strong dislike for the stealth destroyer because in real life, stealth surface warships don't perform as advertised. It's not because of anything actually germane to the game, I guess.
 
Now, if you decide to create unique naval art for various nations (some nations, anyway), you could use 'predreadnought' art in place of the cruiser for various nations. Predreadnoughts of the Victorian era didn't look that different from armored cruisers, they were just bigger and hairier. Wouldn't recommend doing it for Russia, mind you, because the existing art is a Russian cruiser (the same class as Avrora, which now sits in Saint Petersburg as a memorial ship because of its role at the Battle of Tsushima and, especially, the Soviet Revolution).

That thought did cross my mind, some variation in industrial/modern naval art would be good. Shall revisit it in a later version.

Hmmm. This makes torpedo boats more powerful than destroyers, at least in the TBs' home waters. Maybe destroyers should get their bonus against submarines and torpedo boats; that's what they were invented to fight in the first place after all.

Gah, that's what I intended, I just forget to list it. Destroyers would be +50% attack versus both Submarines and Torpedo Boats.

Also, I think torpedo boats should be fast- it lends itself to hit-and-run tactics in coastal waters (say, against a naval stack that's not directly off the coast of one of your cities), and segues a bit more neatly into the destroyer, which is in most other ways a very different ship.

I was thinking about this and while I agree that they should be fast, they also have low fuel capacity and thus a short operational range. So I thought to leave their speed at 4 and give them a first strike to represent their 'agility' instead. An alternative could be a withdrawal chance.

On the other hand, perhaps being restricted to coastal waters sufficiently represents this fuel capacity limitation already?

I do not approve of normal submarines being able to detect other submarines. Attack subs yes, that's in large part what they were invented for, but 'standard' submarines which reflect first things like World War era U-boats and later ballistic missile submarines are not good at spotting subs.

Hmm, good point. Do you think this would work fine from a gameplay perspective too?

Aiii! It burns! It burns!

No, seriously, I just have a strong dislike for the stealth destroyer because in real life, stealth surface warships don't perform as advertised. It's not because of anything actually germane to the game, I guess.

Well, in HR, Stealth is a 'Future Tech', possibly implying that it's still a technology in its infancy (in the water at least) and it may be possible eventually. Or not :p

I have no opinion either way on this unit.
 
Torpedo boats would add another scissors-paper-rock element, if they get a bonus against heavy cruisers (50 % coastal "strength" altogether would be too strong), while destroyers are getting a secure kill advantage against TBs and disadvantage against cruisers (besides base strength), respectively.

Maybe it would be interesting to make all naval units more specific by assigning them more special tasks in UnitClassDefenseMods and UnitClassAttackMods, generally.

One dreamy idea, that would improve naval combat considerably, was (through Python) "making ships know", that they're in line (I know I need to elaborate on how that's possible;)). Ships in line with their augmented firing power have such a great advantage over an incoming fleet (imagine a T formed constellation) – and already had it in the pre-sail age for different reasons – that this would be just the right thing to make naval combat in BTS more tactical and interesting. Now, it's boring. Land combat has at least hills and rivers and woods as an opportunity to behave tactically. But the seas are just windless flat sheets of blue cardboard, and battles are like comparing numbers from Excel tables.
 
I get what Keinpferd is saying about making the tactical situation at sea more complex, and I don't disapprove, but I can't think of a solution that wouldn't be hugely complicated and hard to balance. Just shuffling around the unit statistics wouldn't cut it; you'd need to create sea "terrain" to correspond to the terrain that already exists on land. The effects of things like weather and tactical unit formations are normally abstracted out of Civ IV combat- and rightly so, since it's a strategy game and not a tactical game. Terrain isn't abstracted out, but it's only factored in on a huge scale, because each tile on the map represents 100 km or more of land (or sea) on the ground.

Gah, that's what I intended, I just forget to list it. Destroyers would be +50% attack versus both Submarines and Torpedo Boats.
Ah, thank you.

I was thinking about this and while I agree that they should be fast, they also have low fuel capacity and thus a short operational range. So I thought to leave their speed at 4 and give them a first strike to represent their 'agility' instead. An alternative could be a withdrawal chance.

On the other hand, perhaps being restricted to coastal waters sufficiently represents this fuel capacity limitation already?
Hmmmm. I'd advise giving them speed OR a withdrawal chance. Think of them as "naval skirmishers," that was the role they historically occupied. This also makes them more useful against capital ships (cruisers, and potentially battleships if you're fighting a more advanced opponent).

Actually, a withdrawal chance might be the best choice. Good thinking.

I do not advise giving the torpedo boat a special bonus against cruisers. That doesn't affect their ability to fight ironclads (which is important, since just as destroyers were invented to sink torpedo boats, torpedo boats were invented to sink broadside ironclads of the 1860s and 1870s vintage you describe). Nor does it make them strong enough to remain a credible threat going into the modern era, which is desirable for game balance purposes.

We don't want weapons to be made totally obsolete in one age: Longbowmen should be able to defend cities during the Renaissance, for example, even if they're not as good at it.

Hmm, good point. Do you think this would work fine from a gameplay perspective too?
In Civ II, I know submarines couldn't spot each other at all. I don't think it would be too much of a problem as long as destroyers are widely available for anti-submarine warfare- and they are, if everyone's old triremes and galleasses are upgrading to them.

Does the AI rely heavily on 'normal' submarines to detect other submarines? That could be the one unbalancing factor that would throw a monkey wrench in the works.

Also, I repeat that attack submarines should be able to spot normal submarines, and other attack submarines, for that Hunt for Red October goodness... it's just that the ability to do that is post-WWII, and fits ill with the late Industrial/early Modern "submarine" which is pitched as a U-boat.

Well, in HR, Stealth is a 'Future Tech', possibly implying that it's still a technology in its infancy (in the water at least) and it may be possible eventually. Or not :p

I have no opinion either way on this unit.
Oh, the technology is in its infancy all right; it's just that it was assessed by everyone involved and they concluded that it would never be anything more than a big baby.

The problem is that, well. Your goal is to make a ship invisible to radar, right? This requires you to shape the hull funny. The problems with that are twofold. One is that funny-shaped ships mean ships with poor seakeeping qualities- they're too vulnerable to bad weather and the like. The other is that normally a ship moves, and moving ships throw up plumes of spray that are visible to radar.

Some of the stealth ship prototypes turned out to be more visible to radar while moving than a normal ship would be, because their funny-shaped hull throws up much more spray into the eyes of other people's radar.


That notwithstanding, we should probably keep the stealth destroyer unit just to avoid mucking with the late-game balance. In real life, the dominant surface combatant will be the "missile cruiser," called destroyer/frigate/cruiser/whatever depending on the whim of the country that built it, for the foreseeable future, but who cares?

I could arbitrarily invent a Future Surface Combatant that would replace the stealth destroyer and have different capabilities, rather than just having this special class of "nyah nyah invisible!" units. But what would be the point? And I doubt there'd be art for it, anyway... although I could still probably if you like.

Anyway. Keep the stealth destroyer; it makes my brain itch but that's life.


The one thing that concerns me about doing it this way, Xyth, is that if the destroyer upgrades to the stealth destroyer, who replaces the destroyer's special missions?

Hmmm. Attack submarines can do anti-submarine warfare pretty well, better than destroyers really. What about air defense? Carriers are good for that, but not perfect...

If you want to be really realistic, you could give the air defense mission to the missile cruiser- give them a chance of intercepting aircraft along with everything else. The only problem is that this might make them seem overpowered, so they'd probably have to be made expensive.



Oh. One question, not really related to the mod. I've used nuclear attacks in Civ IV, but I can't remember ever seeing the results of a nuclear strike against a fleet at sea. What happens?
 
Torpedo Boat: Str 16, Move 4, Cost 120, 1 first strike, 25% withdrawal chance, +50% Coast attack, cannot enter Ocean

Added the withdrawal chance but retained the first strike. Strength lowered to 16 and cost to 120. They'd still decimate any Ironclad they attack in coastal waters but wouldn't be as good on the defensive. A single Torpedo Boat is no longer quite as likely to cripple a Cruiser but as they're now cheaper they'd be deadly in numbers. How's that look?

(50 % coastal "strength" altogether would be too strong)

Note that this is 'coastal attack' and doesn't apply to defense. They'll also be quite vulnerable to ships attacking them from ocean tiles.

One dreamy idea, that would improve naval combat considerably, was (through Python) "making ships know", that they're in line (I know I need to elaborate on how that's possible;)). Ships in line with their augmented firing power have such a great advantage over an incoming fleet (imagine a T formed constellation) – and already had it in the pre-sail age for different reasons – that this would be just the right thing to make naval combat in BTS more tactical and interesting. Now, it's boring.

Formation tactics would be great but, as always, getting the AI to understand it is pretty much impossible without the SDK>

Land combat has at least hills and rivers and woods as an opportunity to behave tactically. But the seas are just windless flat sheets of blue cardboard, and battles are like comparing numbers from Excel tables.

Just shuffling around the unit statistics wouldn't cut it; you'd need to create sea "terrain" to correspond to the terrain that already exists on land. The effects of things like weather and tactical unit formations are normally abstracted out of Civ IV combat- and rightly so, since it's a strategy game and not a tactical game. Terrain isn't abstracted out, but it's only factored in on a huge scale, because each tile on the map represents 100 km or more of land (or sea) on the ground.

In 0.9.5 I'm adding reefs and coastal waters that can (optionally) extend up to 3 tiles out from land. This should break up the monotony of ocean combat and travel a little. Currently reefs cost 3 movement and give a -25% defense penalty (and economic benefits and marine reserves). They can appear in both coastal and ocean waters in 'clumpy lines' and can make some pretty interesting bottlenecks on certain maptypes.

Let me know if you can think of any ways to leverage these ideas further.

In Civ II, I know submarines couldn't spot each other at all. I don't think it would be too much of a problem as long as destroyers are widely available for anti-submarine warfare- and they are, if everyone's old triremes and galleasses are upgrading to them.

I'm happy to implement it (for Subs, but not Attack Subs) in 0.9.5 and we can see how it goes. I don't think it would be an issue for the AI at all, especially if we retain the Airship's ability to spot subs. (Which I most probably will. I like Azoth's Airship suggestion but giving it a larger visibility range is proving much more technical than I thought it would be.)

The one thing that concerns me about doing it this way, Xyth, is that if the destroyer upgrades to the stealth destroyer, who replaces the destroyer's special missions?

Any reason we can't just give them to the Stealth Destroyer? Or is that just stretching things too far?

Hmmm. Attack submarines can do anti-submarine warfare pretty well, better than destroyers really. What about air defense? Carriers are good for that, but not perfect...

I kinda assumed that these two took over the role. Just realized I inadvertently left the carrier out of my proposed scheme, does it need any improvements or changes?

If you want to be really realistic, you could give the air defense mission to the missile cruiser- give them a chance of intercepting aircraft along with everything else. The only problem is that this might make them seem overpowered, so they'd probably have to be made expensive.

This does seem like the obvious and realistic choice.

Oh. One question, not really related to the mod. I've used nuclear attacks in Civ IV, but I can't remember ever seeing the results of a nuclear strike against a fleet at sea. What happens?

I'm not sure. Next time I fire up the game I'll test and see.
 
I'm happy to implement it (for Subs, but not Attack Subs) in 0.9.5 and we can see how it goes. I don't think it would be an issue for the AI at all, especially if we retain the Airship's ability to spot subs. (Which I most probably will. I like Azoth's Airship suggestion but giving it a larger visibility range is proving much more technical than I thought it would be.)
Fair enough. As I said before, antisubmarine warfare is a realistic mission for airships, as is reconaissance over large areas of sea- that's how I always used them, because with their long range I could see pretty much anything coming at me over water before it hit my coast.

Any reason we can't just give them [the air defense mission] to the Stealth Destroyer? Or is that just stretching things too far?
Personally, given how real life works, I'd say it's more justified to give them to the missile cruisers- that's what Civ II did with the AEGIS cruiser, for example. As I see it, the stealth destroyer's most useful combat role (sneaking around hitting things and exploiting its first strikes to finish off stuff damaged by air/submarine attacks) doesn't lend itself to sitting in the middle of a task force shooting down enemy planes.

I kinda assumed that these two took over the role. Just realized I inadvertently left the carrier out of my proposed scheme, does it need any improvements or changes?
Carrier should stay as-is, IMO; you may tick its speed up or down, though. Originally I'd figured on cruisers being useful for having the strength of a vanilla destroyer and the speed to keep up with carriers, whereas battleships would be slower than carriers (they were in real life). As long as the carrier gets Move 6, you're fine.

Carriers can certainly handle the fleet air defense mission in a quite satisfactory way. I'd be just as happy with a surface ship that stands at least some chance of shooting down planes, mind you- maybe the missile cruiser could have a limited interception chance, not all that high, but high enough you can't just strafe it to death like you could a battleship?
 
Formation tactics would be great but, as always, getting the AI to understand it is pretty much impossible without the SDK

Let's assume, there's a ship of the line on plot (x=17,y=4), accompanied by two others. We ask Python to check, whether there are any friendly units (COMBAT_SEA) on plots ((x=17,y=4)+1x), ((x=17,y=4)-1x), ((x=17,y=4)+1y), ((x=17,y=4)-1y). Next step is asking, whether the initial plot and both neighbouring x-axis-plots are friendly occupied or whether the initial plot and both neighbouring y-axis-plots are friendly occupied. If any of the two instances are true, this means, that original ship on (x=17,y=4) is meeting our definition of "in line." If true, that lucky ship receives a strength boost of +50 %. Obviously, we ignore diagonal ship rows and exclude them from our definition of "line", owing to the rectangular grid of Civ IV.

If strength modifications created in Python like I described go into the global combat calculation, the AI should be aware of it, shouldn't she?

Maybe the efford to find out, is better invested in other areas, Xyth… …just thought to jot it down maybe to come back to it later. (I mean, now that we're getting neatly restructured HR fleets:), it would be so much fun to see them acting smarter than in BTS.)
 
Let's assume, there's a ship of the line on plot (x=17,y=4), accompanied by two others. We ask Python to check, whether there are any friendly units (COMBAT_SEA) on plots ((x=17,y=4)+1x), ((x=17,y=4)-1x), ((x=17,y=4)+1y), ((x=17,y=4)-1y). Next step is asking, whether the initial plot and both neighbouring x-axis-plots are friendly occupied or whether the initial plot and both neighbouring y-axis-plots are friendly occupied. If any of the two instances are true, this means, that original ship on (x=17,y=4) is meeting our definition of "in line." If true, that lucky ship receives a strength boost of +50 %. Obviously, we ignore diagonal ship rows and exclude them from our definition of "line", owing to the rectangular grid of Civ IV.

That bit is quite doable. The problems comes when we want the AI to deliberately position and move its ships into such formations. That level of decision making isn't exposed to Python. Without it, the player would have a formidable advantage over the AI.

If strength modifications created in Python like I described go into the global combat calculation, the AI should be aware of it, shouldn't she?

The AI is aware of anything added via the XML but is completely unaware of anything added via Python. As such, any Python changes need to be passive in nature (as in, the AI receives the benefit from doing what it probably would have done anyway - and the player's foreknowledge of the bonus doesn't provide too much advantage).

It is possible to override the AI to a certain degree. For example, the Inquisitor code checks for a suitable city for inquisition and tells the unit to go to that city and get burning. Simple stuff like that is fine but more complex stuff is hampered by the fact that Python is notoriously slow at anything involving unit path finding. The SDK is so much more suitable to such tasks.

Maybe the efford to find out, is better invested in other areas, Xyth… …just thought to jot it down maybe to come back to it later. (I mean, now that we're getting neatly restructured HR fleets:), it would be so much fun to see them acting smarter than in BTS.)

Always worth talking about, even if one idea is unfortunately improbable there's bound to be other ways we can make naval combat a bit more interesting.
 
The problem I have with naval formations is that on the strategic level they don't matter- tiles are a hundred kilometers across; battleships don't form lines that long and Age of Sail ships certainly didn't. In real life, ships formed line of battle because it's the most effective way for a concentrated fleet to bring a lot of guns to bear at once without risk of shooting each other in the back. It only makes sense when the ships are clustered up.

Like allowing artillery to bombard cities into powder from the other side of an impassable mountain range two squares away, by setting up naval formations that large on a strategic scale you're skewing the simulation of both tactical and strategic combat.

The idea is cool, mind you- I certainly understand the desire to add more flexibility and complexity to naval warfare, and get away from the "blue cardboard" effect. I just don't think this is the way to do it. Creating actual terrain on the oceans is the better choice... hmm.

Xyth, about those Reef squares. I know you were planning them to have a defense penalty, but it might actually make sense to give 'coastal' warships a defense bonus in Reef squares. Motor torpedo boats and oared galleys are a lot more effective compared to their long-ranged oceangoing counterparts in environments where the water is shallow and the bigger ship has to be careful to avoid running aground. That might be the one environment where they're relatively safe from being casually swatted by oceangoing ships attacking from ocean squares they can't reach.
 
I am not sure what prompted the change so that promotions are now at 5, 10, 15, etc.

On just the first promotion, I do not like the change.

Barracks no longer is enough to provide a promotion, by itself.
Yes you can get a promotion with the addition of a military instructor or the right civic.
(Stables add for mounted units.)

Thus early on, all of your units are unpromoted.
Yes those with 4 experience are likely to get a promotion if they survive their first battle.
However, you have reduced the power of the barracks greatly.
At the same time those traits that provide free promotions and special units are relatively stronger.

I thought the barracks was meant to simulate the difference between well trained troops and less trained troops. Now there is no visible difference when they meet in their first battle. (In addition, you had battle-tested troops, etc.)

No final opinion yet on having further promotions spaced an equal distance apart, rather than an increasing distance apart. However, this change also does not have the right feel to me.
 
I have only played so far with catapults and battering rams.
(I have yet to get to later eras.)

The changes seem to be OK so far.

Catapults are still very strong units.
I was having withdrawal chances of 80 to 90%.
Collateral damage to 3 units.
I think Catapults should to be toned down; they are too decisive in early combat.

My opponent did not have Mathematics, the tech for Catapults, so I do not know how the AI would handle Catapults.
 
I haven't really played yet- been busy- but the sound of the promotion tree makes me nervous. The existing Civ IV promotion system works fine as far as I can tell; why change it? Was this discussed with anyone ahead of time?

With some changes you make, Xyth, I look at them and I immediately see why you did it, and it makes sense. But with this one... I don't get it.
 
I too was puzzled.
If it aint broke don't fix it.

Playing so far I do not like it.

One example, a barracks does not lead to a promotion by itself.

Also I do not think constant steps work well, and even if it did I do not think 5 works particularly well.

I haven't really played yet- been busy- but the sound of the promotion tree makes me nervous. The existing Civ IV promotion system works fine as far as I can tell; why change it? Was this discussed with anyone ahead of time?

With some changes you make, Xyth, I look at them and I immediately see why you did it, and it makes sense. But with this one... I don't get it.
 
Another thing I don't like about the XP system, having just started a game...

I used to be able to have scouts, by intelligent positioning, fight wild animals and get useful promotions- especially Woodsman II, which makes them far more effective. Now they need 10 XP to get there, which takes an impractical number of fights.

All in all, the effect of the new change is to make it very difficult to make good use of promotions in an army. Only a tiny core of elite troops can have more than one or maybe two promotions through combat experience, which unbalances a whole range of strategies relating to war by making high-level promotions trickier to access, and stopping warlike civilizations from building double and triple-promoted units by use of various experience-granting methods.
 
The XP change was an idea of Azoth's that we'd been discussing and I was experimenting (inconclusively) with. It was one of the things that I was meant to remove before 0.9.5 was released but I forgot.

I'm not sure if there's going to be a proper patch for 0.9.5 as this is the only 'critical' issue reported so far. In the meantime the attached file will revert it to normal. It replaces /History Rewritten/Assets/Python/CvGameUtils.py
 

Attachments

  • CvGameUtils.py.zip
    4.1 KB · Views: 135
Thank you. That really is the main issue I have with the patch, I think. Aside from that, everything's in shipshape, though you might want to restore some more significant bonus to the Forge for 0.9.6.


EDIT: constant XP cost for promotions might actually work- but it doesn't work at five points per promotion, because only units with an unusual amount of combat experience ever get more than about 5 XP, 10 at the very most.

At three or four points it might be more interesting, although at three points per promotion it would slant towards a lot of promotions, especially with the Leadership promotion in effect.
 
Note:

I just noticed that you forgot to rename the self-propelled artillery unit; it's still named "Artillery."

I also noticed that the Bomber unit reads as having a max collateral damage of -804767364%. This is probably something you want to pay attention to...
 
I just noticed that you forgot to rename the self-propelled artillery unit; it's still named "Artillery."

Fixed for 0.9.6. Thanks.

I also noticed that the Bomber unit reads as having a max collateral damage of -804767364%. This is probably something you want to pay attention to...

Bizarre! I haven't made any changes to the Bomber that I'm aware of. I shall investigate.
 
Top Bottom