1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Flying mod

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Community Enchancement Project' started by The Great Apple, May 21, 2006.

  1. The Great Apple

    The Great Apple Big Cheese

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,361
    Location:
    Oxford, England
    Can I put forward a proposal for the inlcusion of RogerBacon's flying mod?

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171813

    Features:

    New tag: bFlying. Allows unit to move over water as well as land.
    New functionallity: Air units with more than one movement can attack once per movement point.
     
  2. SpoiledFruit

    SpoiledFruit Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    I would have to say no to this because you could then transport entire armies (like 50 to 100 units) over water. What would be the point of transports. It makes naval combat useless. It is a novel mod but changes gameplay too much to be included in the CCP. This is more for a fantasy total conversion mod.

    I do think the multiple strike for aircraft could be added. That would make more sense in modern aircraft.
     
  3. Gerikes

    Gerikes User of Run-on Sentences.

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,753
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I have to disagree. I think along with providing a richer Civ4 experience, part of the idea behind the CCP is to make accessable items in the SDK to modders who can do the XML and python, but not the C++. While it might change gameplay a ton for anyone who enables it, as long as no actual Civ4 units are changed then I think it would be fine, allowing easy access to a type of unit that many modders might want to have without changing any gameplay unless specifically enabled.

    I would feel differently if we were to make the gunship actually became this new type of flying unit as default with the package, but I don't think that would be the case. I don't even believe that a switch should be included in the game to turn gunship movements on and off like this. Rather, I think that it should be on a list of improvements available to modders who want to use the CCP as the DLL file, rather than having to craft it themselves. With the release, we include a section that goes along the line of "Improvements for modders", which lists off all XML attributes and python functions created simply to help them. One of them would be these XML switches for creating the amphibious unit.
     
  4. SpoiledFruit

    SpoiledFruit Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    I would support it if we just put in the foundation to allow it. I thought TGA wanted us to put the mod in its entirety into the CCP dll.
     
  5. Impaler[WrG]

    Impaler[WrG] Civ4:Col UI programmer

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,750
    Location:
    Vallejo, California
    I have read his thread and from what I can see its complely controled by XML so it will not break or even alter anything without being activated their. As long as his code is comented and passes mustar then I am all for it.

    Spoiled: You realize that its just adding an option XML tag, including all the code changes in the DLL still would have no effect without a new Units.xml and UnitSchema.xml. We should include the new Schema with the accompanying Assets pack, it wont break any existing gameplay and it shows moders ware to put the new tag which is very important for them to know. If we want to include an altered Units.xml with the changes R.Bacon did to the GunShip is another issue. I could go either way on that, the advatage is that is shows off the mod and alows the average user to imediatly see and play many of the new features without having to do any XML activation on their own, it also makes bug testing MUCH more straitforward as you dont have to explicity turn on each feature your testing one by one. On the other hand it dose complicate things for Mod makers by forcing them to deactivate stuff. I recomend we provide both a downloadable Assets file with DLL and Schemas only and also an Assets Pack that contains activated XML files for Debugging and showing off the new features.
     
  6. The Great Apple

    The Great Apple Big Cheese

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,361
    Location:
    Oxford, England
    As other have said. None of this will change anything in the default game. The <bFlying> tag is a boolean tag in the XML, and will be disabled by default. It's up to modders if they want to use it or not.

    Personally I think that this mod should have no effect on the rules, or the appearance, of the game without being explicitly told to.
     
  7. 12monkeys

    12monkeys Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Germany, Europe
    I havn't had a close look on the mod, but does the AI recognize and use this flag?

    12m
     
  8. The Great Apple

    The Great Apple Big Cheese

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,361
    Location:
    Oxford, England
    From what I can tell the AI is fine with it - if you say a unit can move into the sea the pathfinding just looks in sea plots as well. The AI should be able to use it, however, I'm not sure how much it would. I think you may have to add the ATTACK_SEA unit AI to make it engage in combat with sea units as well as land units.

    One potential problem is the easy of exploitation by the player. You could, taking a gunship as an example, find a one square lake in the enemies terratory, and hide in it, pillaging any land around and stopping workers from rebuilding it. The only way to kill it would be with another gunship.

    Roger also said there was an unavoidable graphical glitch when the gunship attacks a ship from land - the ship would run over the land plot to engage.
     
  9. 12monkeys

    12monkeys Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Germany, Europe
    I had a look in that Flymod post and I think we should implement it. Maybe we can even improve it a bit.

    12m
     
  10. chrusion

    chrusion Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    :lol: That graphic glitch of the ship running over land happens in vanilla Civ IV. I cannot remember the units involved in the engagement right now but it was in a coastal tile.:lol:
     
  11. Impaler[WrG]

    Impaler[WrG] Civ4:Col UI programmer

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,750
    Location:
    Vallejo, California
    AI may be able to use the Unit when built but it is likley not taking the tag into account when it desides what units to build. It should be a rather simple to do something on the lines of

    if (Possible_unit_to_build.has_ability(Flying))
    Desirability += a whole lot!!!
     
  12. The Great Apple

    The Great Apple Big Cheese

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,361
    Location:
    Oxford, England
    He's just updated it with a funky "always camera zoom" function, which makes the camera zoom option zoom in on defensive battles as well as offensive battles.
     
  13. chrusion

    chrusion Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I remember playing around with modding Civ III to have flying units. I never took it too seriously, my concept model launched me off in a different direction, but I remembered the AI was completely disregarding the new unit.

    Yeah, it should be that simple!
     
  14. Olleus

    Olleus Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    Maybe that could be included for normal planes.
    The closer a bomber is based to its target, the more damage it does. This would have to be very carefuly balanced though.
     
  15. The Great Apple

    The Great Apple Big Cheese

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,361
    Location:
    Oxford, England
    Doesn't really fit. You could add a switch for it, but I don't think it's needed at all - it's a bit fiddly, and I can't see anybody using it much.
     
  16. Olleus

    Olleus Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    It makes sence though. If you're closer to your target, then you can do more bomb runs in a given amount of time. Might actual give a use to carriers.
     

Share This Page