Flying units?

[QES]

Alright another stab.

Based on H. Grenadefrenzy's Idea, I'm wondering about a "base anywhere" situation for units.

Most flying units would be able to "base anywhere" litterally on the map. Then they can attack "From that spot" just like divebombing and the like does now.
The big difference is, when where they are based is attacked, and there are no other units defending the Flying unit would simply function like a land unit. That is, it has strength, does damage, its just your average combat. This of course is assuming that it has the most (or least in the case of marksman) strength in the tile.

Think of your griffin. Let us say it has a "range" of 3.

This would mean that it can REbase - to any location allowed by land units, within 6 tiles that turn. On "attack runs" it can attack anything within three tiles (and then return).

This mechanic (while sloppy) uses preexisting AI, and mechanics, that would not have to be altered drastically to produce the desired effects.

For "uber flyers" (world units, expensive airships, flying islands) I think the promotion idea works. Two would be needed. "Airborne" and "Flyer" Airborne would be "permanently in the air - and have dominion over the land below (no movement through the tile). Airborne units can only be attacked by other airborne units, and Flyers. Flyers would use the mechanic above. In this, Flyers can be attacked by ground forces (where they've landed to rest), and flyers can still attack the airborne.

While not the prettiest type of flight, it would add a third level/dimension to the combat tactics employed in FFH (I consider this a heavy plus), and much needed flavor to the world of dark fantasy (high/dark fantasy without fliers seems to be just...well, wrong).

-Qes

EDIT: On the AI - It strikes me that the AI for vanilla is at least aware that it needs an airforce. And I'm sure it has notions of where "hostile threats exist". In this, does the AI not already place its airforce units (base them) close to the areas in which it expects to be attacked or attack from? If so - it should follow that the Flyers an AI produces would/could be found along the boarders of AI nations, especially in times of hostility - considering any/all tiles are options for basing. Then, would it be difficult to incentivize the AI to attack hostile units (instead of rebasing) as often as possible? I know a conditional would eventually need to be added so that based units that are going to get killed arn't ignored - but this may be a first step

 

[eerr]

Spoiler :

Alright another stab.

Based on H. Grenadefrenzy's Idea, I'm wondering about a "base anywhere" situation for units.

Most flying units would be able to "base anywhere" litterally on the map. Then they can attack "From that spot" just like divebombing and the like does now.
The big difference is, when where they are based is attacked, and there are no other units defending the Flying unit would simply function like a land unit. That is, it has strength, does damage, its just your average combat. This of course is assuming that it has the most (or least in the case of marksman) strength in the tile.

Think of your griffin. Let us say it has a "range" of 3.

This would mean that it can REbase - to any location allowed by land units, within 6 tiles that turn. On "attack runs" it can attack anything within three tiles (and then return).

This mechanic (while sloppy) uses preexisting AI, and mechanics, that would not have to be altered drastically to produce the desired effects.

For "uber flyers" (world units, expensive airships, flying islands) I think the promotion idea works. Two would be needed. "Airborne" and "Flyer" Airborne would be "permanently in the air - and have dominion over the land below (no movement through the tile). Airborne units can only be attacked by other airborne units, and Flyers. Flyers would use the mechanic above. In this, Flyers can be attacked by ground forces (where they've landed to rest), and flyers can still attack the airborne.

While not the prettiest type of flight, it would add a third level/dimension to the combat tactics employed in FFH (I consider this a heavy plus), and much needed flavor to the world of dark fantasy (high/dark fantasy without fliers seems to be just...well, wrong).

-Qes

so pretty much- the ai only needs to figure out good spots to rebase to(where it won't get attacked very much) and then can attack using an option similar to bombard(with 100%withdrawl of course)

 

[QES]

so pretty much- the ai only needs to figure out good spots to rebase to(where it won't get attacked very much) and then can attack using an option similar to bombard(with 100%withdrawl of course)

Well couldnt the "bombing" functions simply be renamed? They're odds should be adjusted accordingly, since the flyers are actually swooping down and mixing it up instead of simply droping things from above.

I mean, in a perfect world, the flyers would be able to engage in actual combat instead of a "bombing" run. One would select a unit within the range, and your flyer would engage in combat with it over the defended tile. The art team would have nightmares and visions about this im sure - but still.

%s should be 100 for pillaing "strategic bombing" for flyers as well.

-Qes

EDIT: To specifically address the question - "what is 'good' spots for basing" for an AI, I think that the mere pressence of units along a boarder, and perhaps scripts that mimic land units could be brought under consideration. I mean, the best bases would be the best defenseable with the maximum range.

I think some flyers (not all) should be able to access Peaks. These would be ideal - also perhaps the peaks should give flyers +2 or +4 range (1 or 2 attacking radius). Again, this is not for ALL flyers - just those accustomed to being able to perch, or exist on uneven terrain.

The AI would most likely consider range first - get the flyers in range to attack, then its considerations should be defensive in nature - because after all, they're still just basic units like the footsoldiers.

 

[eerr]

Well couldnt the "bombing" functions simply be renamed? They're odds should be adjusted accordingly, since the flyers are actually swooping down and mixing it up instead of simply droping things from above.

I mean, in a perfect world, the flyers would be able to engage in actual combat instead of a "bombing" run. One would select a unit within the range, and your flyer would engage in combat with it over the defended tile. The art team would have nightmares and visions about this im sure - but still.

%s should be 100 for pillaing "strategic bombing" for flyers as well.

bombing functions never had attack odds before, as far as i know, and they don't have proper attack animations either.
well... theres still a bunch of problems-but it seems more feasible than my psuedo/mismash for flight

(the attack odds shouldn't be that hard to add, compared to getting the ai to understand the combat)

 

[QES]

bombing functions never had attack odds before, as far as i know, and they don't have proper attack animations either.
well... theres still a bunch of problems-but it seems more feasible than my psuedo/mismash for flight

If there is a way (which it strikes me there isnt, or this would have been thought of already) to turn bombing into combat and odds, then it works.

Because this has not been brought up (to my knowledge) it strikes me that its not possible. SO, baring that, I think that perhaps I could live with flyers having "hit and run" tactics instead of full combat.
-Qes

 

[eerr]

If there is a way (which it strikes me there isnt, or this would have been thought of already) to turn bombing into combat and odds, then it works.

Because this has not been brought up (to my knowledge) it strikes me that its not possible. SO, baring that, I think that perhaps I could live with flyers having "hit and run" tactics instead of full combat.
-Qes

its certainly possible,its just that no one has done it before cuz you need the whole "anchalada" to make it worthwhile, and by that i mean you need to add a whole ai and graphical change along with the fundamental mechanic you've added

 

[QES]

its certainly possible,its just that no one has done it before cuz you need the whole "anchalada" to make it worthwhile, and by that i mean you need to add a whole ai and graphical change along with the fundamental mechanic you've added

Well, is that entirely necessary?

There is already code (i hope) in which the AI will bomb the bejesus out of things it identifys in vanilla civ. It already rebases airplanes.

By the same token, the AI should be able to think of moving the units to their proper destinations, and "bombing the bejesus" out of them as per normal.

Its just that the unwary AI will be attacking instead of bombing, and as long as a few adjustments are made, the AI wouldn't be able to tell the difference, the consequence being that it looks like real combat, when its really just air superiority to the AI.
-Qes

 

[eerr]

Well, is that entirely necessary?

There is already code (i hope) in which the AI will bomb the bejesus out of things it identifys in vanilla civ. It already rebases airplanes.

bombing isn't the same as attacking(the flying unit is nearly guarenteed to be damaged)
airplanes are always based on to a city or an aircraft carrier in vanilla
(the ai doesn't have the logic to rebase to a tile without either of these)
unless you want the ai to be restricted defensively in large land wars.

By the same token, the AI should be able to think of moving the units to their proper destinations, and "bombing the bejesus" out of them as per normal.

this should work just fine...(the ai will be able to kill units though, so whatever triggers death animations will need to be fixed)

Its just that the unwary AI will be attacking instead of bombing, and as long as a few adjustments are made, the AI wouldn't be able to tell the difference, the consequence being that it looks like real combat, when its really just air superiority to the AI.
-Qes

hopefully!

 

[QES]

bombing isn't the same as attacking(the flying unit is nearly guarenteed to be damaged)
airplanes are always based on to a city or an aircraft carrier in vanilla
(the ai doesn't have the logic to rebase to a tile without either of these)
unless you want the ai to be restricted defensively in large land wars.

Does it think in cities and aircraft carriers? Or does it see valid and invalid tiles?

If its valid and invalid tiles, then it'll move the best distance in the direction It wants the airforce to head, would it not? If it thinks in cities and carriers - this is obviously a problem.

this should work just fine...(the ai will be able to kill units though, so whatever triggers death animations will need to be fixed)

Well yeah, But art is secondary to me at the moment, I'd be ok (for now) with bomb sounds and animations as long as the principle works first.

-Qes

 

[Quetz]

rebase could require some improvement, like an Aerie for griffons, a cave for wyvern riders, etc.. the AI could probably understand that much, maybe. The vanilla interception mission could even be used - just renamed to something like Patrol.

Flying units are one of the things I wanted to try and mod in, using converted/resized NWN models.. no time to actually do it though

And yea, Beef, AirBuccaneers rocked!

 

[QES]

rebase could require some improvement, like an Aerie for griffons, a cave for wyvern riders, etc.. the AI could probably understand that much, maybe. The vanilla interception mission could even be used - just renamed to something like Patrol.

Flying units are one of the things I wanted to try and mod in, using converted/resized NWN models.. no time to actually do it though

And yea, Beef, AirBuccaneers rocked!

I want to avoid "building requirements" for rebasing - perhaps for construction, but not rebasing.

Idealy, to produce the results we've been talking about, the "every space is a base" option is the best - at least for flyers. I'm thinking that Airborne units, should only recognize cities as "bases" there by preventing them from making it "unattackable" to ground units, AND making them more vulnerable to attack - the city clearly has a way to "get to the unit in the sky" and therefor, any invading armies would also have that access.

This wouldn't be too tricky. Technically the "airborne" would be a ground unit with water walking, and would be "unattackable" which represents its lofty heights. - but then how to make it soft in cities? Give it massive city negaters. Then if its attacked by shadows/assassins in a city (making those who spent the time building them cry) its an act of sabotague(sp?) more than actual combat.

That was all thinking..er.. out loud.

All tiles = bases.
Flyers use vanilla AI (with minor modification) for use. (Rebase & Attack)
Airborne = Ground Waterwalking units (mechanically) and can only be attacked by flyers or other Airborne. - Can pass all terrain.

Is this possible? Mehopes?
-Qes

 

[Quetz]

I mentioned the tile improvements in the case that the AI is focused on points such as carriers and cities, it might be possible to make it understand that these improvements are carriers.. while it might not be possible to make it understand that every tile is.

Who knows though, maybe it would work.

 

[QES]

I mentioned the tile improvements in the case that the AI is focused on points such as carriers and cities, it might be possible to make it understand that these improvements are carriers.. while it might not be possible to make it understand that every tile is.

Who knows though, maybe it would work.

But how do we get the AI to understand that?

They could be improvements that the AI valued just above irregation expansion outside of city radii. Workers always look to expand irregation when there isnt anything else to improve - if it could be worked in that they built "airbases" instead, that might function very well. The only consequence is that then flyers would never be based within a cities radius, with the exception of the city tile itself - which makes for a great deal of tactical sense anyway.

Could the AI be tought to value the "airbase" improvements as much as expanding irregation? And if they were plausible for all features and terrains, then we may have a "perimeter" system worked out naturally. Especially if, as you said, the improvements can be the same to the AI as carriers.

One glaring weakness - how would or could flyers rebase to islands off the coast, wild places that have never been cultivated? Do we want to restrict flyers to "improved lands and cities?" That seems to break down the flavor a bit.

Still, something will be better than nothing.
-Qes

 

[Mithrus]

Semi-random on-topic thoughts:

What actual roadblocks are there with the Civ4 non-modable code that can't be overcome with the custom code? I coudln't find

Has adding a "flying" promotion been determined as insufficient to handle the support code? I don't know the code, but with all the other magic you have been able to do, I figure adding checks for flying creatures would be fairly straight forward.

IMO, a flying created can be prompted whether it wants to attack a stack that it encounters, unless both have flying (similar to prompt when you try to attack someone you aren't at war with).

I could also see a spell that summons a "windstorm" that essentially acts as a guardsman/defender vs archer/flyer units, and

 

[QES]

Semi-random on-topic thoughts:

What actual roadblocks are there with the Civ4 non-modable code that can't be overcome with the custom code? I coudln't find

Has adding a "flying" promotion been determined as insufficient to handle the support code? I don't know the code, but with all the other magic you have been able to do, I figure adding checks for flying creatures would be fairly straight forward.

IMO, a flying created can be prompted whether it wants to attack a stack that it encounters, unless both have flying (similar to prompt when you try to attack someone you aren't at war with).

I could also see a spell that summons a "windstorm" that essentially acts as a guardsman/defender vs archer/flyer units, and

If the forum gnomes stole the rest of your post, I recomend geting "Gnomeaway" its essential for forum community postings.

Also, while the "flight" mechanic seems fairly straight forward - kael has said (i believe) that its much trickier than it first appears, and has pushed it back continually because they couldnt figure out how to do it "right".

I've been one of the major voices advocating for "bad" as being acceptable in opposition to "none". But he's got a signifcant point if flying units actually detracts from the game, simply because their mechanics are too inconsistant or frustrating.

I feel like were making theoretical progress, but until someone actually takes one of the many ideas weve been tossing around and starts to troubleshoot and problem solve, we're never going to get anywhere.

I'm a lover not a programer. So I'm not of any use in this. I can however use what logics I have to try to HELP the programers envision their goals.

Wait... Does that make me a FFH cheerleader? Maybe now I can become president.
-Qes