lindsay40k
Emperor
Chariots get a bonus when attacking units on flatlands in some mods, which makes sense. Alternatively, some give then a strength bump and reduced damage when attacking cities, hills, forests.
Feedback: Units
- Thread starter Xyth
- Start date
Hmm, that's interesting. Worth considering.
lindsay40k
Emperor
Have you looked at The Ancient Mediterranean mod, incidentally? It ran on my Mac, and has an interesting weapons system that upgrades units in an alternative fashion to buying class changes.
I haven't. I was under the impression it didn't work on Mac.
No. The XML allows for one building prerequisite only. Could probably be fudged in Python, but at a performance cost.
lindsay40k
Emperor
I could run TAM to the end of a Silk Road (tech) win on OSX without problem. Only issue I ever had was that, in the MP lobby, it couldn't see games hosted by Windows users. And I once captured Mids and they disappeared, maybe. There was no issues arising from the weapons system.
Nightstar
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 408
A couple of unit animation glitches I've recently noticed in my current 1.19 game (which might or might not have already been fixed for 1.20):
The Hebrew Cog doesn't have a 'death' animation.
The Indonesian War Elephant has the rider sticking out the side of the elephant.
The Hebrew Cog doesn't have a 'death' animation.
The Indonesian War Elephant has the rider sticking out the side of the elephant.
Hmm. Fixing that is beyond my skills unfortunately, the model seems to be missing certain nodes that the death animation needs. Note that this same model is used as the Cog for most Mediterranean civilizations. I'll leave it as is for now, but keep an eye out for a suitable replacement.
Fixed, thank you.
Skidizzle
Gameshow Host
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 118
Anyone else seem to notice that Polynesian AI doesn't know how to use their UU Waka?
Everytime I play the earth map they never leave (the horribly rendered) New Zealand. I'll go into worldbuilder and see that their Waka's are scripted to 'settler sea' but they never do any settling until I give them a galley.
Everytime I play the earth map they never leave (the horribly rendered) New Zealand. I'll go into worldbuilder and see that their Waka's are scripted to 'settler sea' but they never do any settling until I give them a galley.
ales_
Heir
It's interesting whether it is influnced by their starting location or not. BTW, in 1.21 only Te Rauparaha will start in New Zealand.
If the AI needs a Galley to leave New Zealand, then it must be having trouble with the limited transport capacity of the Waka. It probably wants to send an escort with the Settler but can't, and doesn't realize it needs a second Waka to do so. That's a strong reason for restoring the second transport slot on the Waka, and maybe reducing its unit strength to 1 to compensate.
Simon_Jester
Prince
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 495
Just noticed we don't have a dedicated unit thread in circulation anymore.
Been playing the Romans and... I'm not actually sure it's worth upgrading Ballistas to Trebuchets. The Ballista is considerably more effective in the open field (can kill low-strength units outright, and has higher strength than a Trebuchet). And given its built-in city attack bonus it's nearly as effective as a Trebuchet even in the Trebuchet's intended role.
After a few promotions along the City Raider line... well. Unpromoted the Ballista hits at 7.5 instead of 8.
With City Raider I, the Ballista attacks at 8.5 to the Trebuchet's 8.8
With City Raider II, the Ballista is attacking at 9.75 to the Trebuchet's 9.8
And with City Raider III (hard to get three promotions for artillery but certainly possible), the Ballista attacks at 11.25 to the Trebuchet's 11.
The Trebuchet does incrementally more collateral damage (or rather, damages more units...) but honestly I'd call it a tie between the two units. Personally, I'd rather have the field artillery potential of the Ballista (for breaking up enemy stacks before they hit my cities) than the incrementally greater city-busting and collateral damage capabilities of the Trebuchet).
Plus, the Trebuchet is significantly more expensive.
Maybe the Ballista should upgrade directly to the Bombard? The Romans can build Trebuchets if they want, but losing the ability to build their unique unit in exchange for another unit that costs more and doesn't perform noticeably better is a let-down.
Been playing the Romans and... I'm not actually sure it's worth upgrading Ballistas to Trebuchets. The Ballista is considerably more effective in the open field (can kill low-strength units outright, and has higher strength than a Trebuchet). And given its built-in city attack bonus it's nearly as effective as a Trebuchet even in the Trebuchet's intended role.
After a few promotions along the City Raider line... well. Unpromoted the Ballista hits at 7.5 instead of 8.
With City Raider I, the Ballista attacks at 8.5 to the Trebuchet's 8.8
With City Raider II, the Ballista is attacking at 9.75 to the Trebuchet's 9.8
And with City Raider III (hard to get three promotions for artillery but certainly possible), the Ballista attacks at 11.25 to the Trebuchet's 11.
The Trebuchet does incrementally more collateral damage (or rather, damages more units...) but honestly I'd call it a tie between the two units. Personally, I'd rather have the field artillery potential of the Ballista (for breaking up enemy stacks before they hit my cities) than the incrementally greater city-busting and collateral damage capabilities of the Trebuchet).
Plus, the Trebuchet is significantly more expensive.
Maybe the Ballista should upgrade directly to the Bombard? The Romans can build Trebuchets if they want, but losing the ability to build their unique unit in exchange for another unit that costs more and doesn't perform noticeably better is a let-down.
There was a Feedback: Units thread but it's fallen away from the front page somewhere. No worries. As for the Ballista, making it upgrade to a Bombard makes sense. UUs lasting a long time is a good thing, we should check if such a change makes sense for any other UUs too.
Moderator Action: The above two posts have been merged with the original thread.
lindsay40k
Emperor
Can someone post a pic of this? I like funny glitches, like an elephant with a sponson
Can someone post a pic of this? I like funny glitches, like an elephant with a sponson
That was back in 2013.
Simon_Jester
Prince
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 495
Got another question:
We have the 'skirmisher line' of units that caps out with the Longbowman: low strength infantry that inflict collateral damage and have a respectable withdrawal chance. Why do we stop there? Would it be logical to have a "Marksman" or "Sharpshooter" unit in the early gunpowder age? We might keep the bonus to hills attack. Or better yet, forest attack.
Dense forest was exactly the sort of environment historical early gunpowder warfare's skirmishers evolved in; the first such units I'm familiar with were German Jaegers, literally 'hunters,' and they emerged out of the hunting tradition that pioneered early rifles. In those days rifles reloaded slowly because you had to pound the lead bullet down the barrel with a mallet and an iron ramrod to get it past the rifling, but they were accurate to long range and lent themselves to sniping and harassment tactics.
So it would honestly make a lot of sense to have a Marksman unit as an upgrade from the Longbowman- a gunpowder unit with a strength of 7 perhaps. Might even stick with strength 6; just being a gunpowder unit is an advantage when most opponents have a lot of 'legacy' units kicking around with bonuses versus archery or melee units.
The Marksman would be weak enough to be kind of pointless against Rifleman units... Which is fairly accurate, since in the 19th century everyone started fighting with long range rifles and sniper-skirmishers became just another type of infantry using the same weapons as anyone else.
If we really wanted to, we could even go further and have an industrial-age unit of similar type, call it the "Partisan" or the "Commando," with high enough strength to inflict meaningful damage to Rifleman and Infantry units.
[It occurs to me that some of the Unique Units that are gunpowder infantry would make perfect substitutes for the Marksman and Partisan. The Vietnamese "Viet Cong" unit comes to mind; historically, North Vietnamese Army regulars weren't all that remarkable, and the Viet Cong was an entirely separate organization dedicated to guerilla warfare and subject to interservice rivalry with the NVA.
We have the 'skirmisher line' of units that caps out with the Longbowman: low strength infantry that inflict collateral damage and have a respectable withdrawal chance. Why do we stop there? Would it be logical to have a "Marksman" or "Sharpshooter" unit in the early gunpowder age? We might keep the bonus to hills attack. Or better yet, forest attack.
Dense forest was exactly the sort of environment historical early gunpowder warfare's skirmishers evolved in; the first such units I'm familiar with were German Jaegers, literally 'hunters,' and they emerged out of the hunting tradition that pioneered early rifles. In those days rifles reloaded slowly because you had to pound the lead bullet down the barrel with a mallet and an iron ramrod to get it past the rifling, but they were accurate to long range and lent themselves to sniping and harassment tactics.
So it would honestly make a lot of sense to have a Marksman unit as an upgrade from the Longbowman- a gunpowder unit with a strength of 7 perhaps. Might even stick with strength 6; just being a gunpowder unit is an advantage when most opponents have a lot of 'legacy' units kicking around with bonuses versus archery or melee units.
The Marksman would be weak enough to be kind of pointless against Rifleman units... Which is fairly accurate, since in the 19th century everyone started fighting with long range rifles and sniper-skirmishers became just another type of infantry using the same weapons as anyone else.
If we really wanted to, we could even go further and have an industrial-age unit of similar type, call it the "Partisan" or the "Commando," with high enough strength to inflict meaningful damage to Rifleman and Infantry units.
[It occurs to me that some of the Unique Units that are gunpowder infantry would make perfect substitutes for the Marksman and Partisan. The Vietnamese "Viet Cong" unit comes to mind; historically, North Vietnamese Army regulars weren't all that remarkable, and the Viet Cong was an entirely separate organization dedicated to guerilla warfare and subject to interservice rivalry with the NVA.
I'd like to continue the 'skirmisher line'* and have more variety in Renaissance era units**, but the biggest hurdle is finding or making up to 55 variants of the art. Easy enough for some civs/regions, but not for most. That aside, I wonder if a more appropriate name for the type of unit you describe would be 'Ranger'.
* It's been suggested several time that we rework the Grenadier into such a unit. I think collateral damage makes sense, but not withdrawal which defeats the point somewhat. Any thoughts on this?
** I still really want to add War Wagons but that's a modelling/animation challenge that's beyond my skill at the moment
* It's been suggested several time that we rework the Grenadier into such a unit. I think collateral damage makes sense, but not withdrawal which defeats the point somewhat. Any thoughts on this?
** I still really want to add War Wagons but that's a modelling/animation challenge that's beyond my skill at the moment
saddam_who_sane
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 58
I don't like mods with huge amount of unnecessary stuff like A New Dawn, but some units from this mod seemed to me very useful - UN forces (infantry ones).
So, as I see these units, they should have..
- Hidden Nationality (can enter rival territory, can enter any tile with any units on it).
- No ability to attack (only defense).
- Can enter any city in order to defend, even Barbarian one.
- They cannot be attacked by any civ on the field, but if one civ attacks city which have UN forces in, these units will act as defenders anyway.
- Have very high cost, significant CityDefense bonus.
- Be available after UN completion, for every civ that can build Infantry units.
So, what do you think? Will these units ever make sense for HistoryRewritten?
So, as I see these units, they should have..
- Hidden Nationality (can enter rival territory, can enter any tile with any units on it).
- No ability to attack (only defense).
- Can enter any city in order to defend, even Barbarian one.
- They cannot be attacked by any civ on the field, but if one civ attacks city which have UN forces in, these units will act as defenders anyway.
- Have very high cost, significant CityDefense bonus.
- Be available after UN completion, for every civ that can build Infantry units.
So, what do you think? Will these units ever make sense for HistoryRewritten?
Interesting unit, but some of those mechanics would require custom coding. I'd have to take a look and see how they've done it but it was almost certainly via the DLL. Although I'm adding a DLL to HR, I don't want to get too carried away with adding stuff that won't function on Mac. Behind the scenes stuff like the AI and culture is fine, but a Windows-only unit would be a step too far.
Similar threads
