Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I have already said this. Same goes for anti crime units and crime and so on.
Well... since I'm working on this heal by cc stuff I can try to include this concept now.
I have already said this. Same goes for anti crime units and crime and so on.
My first suggestion in response to DH was something along these lines. Aside from the fact that this would be quite a project to put together in and of itself, the one thing I don't like about this suggestion is the assumption that there are going to be plenty of bodies to man the weapon - I disagree that manpower should be so easily accounted for. Additionally, some siege weapons must actually move to attack, though I could certainly make it possible for them only to be able to move WHEN attacking.Why not, in my humble opinion, for the classical/medieval age, make the siege engineers heal the siege units if are damaged and the medics heal the siege engineers if they get hurt.
Dunno if its possible, but what if the siege engineers are needed to construct the siege engines (don't know if is possible to spawn unit from other, and on top of that make an unit immobile but able to attack) but not to manage them, however having them at the helm could help accuracy or attack?
Why not need a medic at all for the siege units? The same reason siege engineers are not needed to operate them. Warm bodies to operate the engine should be aplenty on your "army", yet the minds that know how to made them not.
Don't know if the language barriers are letting me explain my idea with enough clarity, or if you already had it.
To try to express my self better I'll make an example.
You have a doctor, a siege engineer and some pikeman units.
All of them move adjacent to a city.
You order the siege engineers to build a trebuchet, wait for a turn, the next turn the trebuchet is ready. Its a immobile unit that however can still attack (don't know if possible).
You move the engineers to other place around the city and order them to build another one. You move your medics and some pikemen with them.
The first trebuchet gets some archers fire, it gets damaged. Wait for the next turn, the second siege engine is ready, you move your engineers back to the place of the first one. They then repair the trebuchet.
Now by some chance the siege engineers get damage by arrows fire, you move your medics towards them or vice-versa, the medics heal them.
While the engineers are standing on a tile with a siege weapon, they give some accuracy or a little damage boost, perhaps only to a single siege unit, not all of them to avoid being overpowered (don't know if possible, if not then discard this bonus).
When the city is conquered the trebuchets are left behind, with no soldier unit to man them, they disappear the next turn or even immediately after the last soldier from the square leaves (don't know if possible).
I get where you're coming from but to me it's completely considering damage on a unit to be a need to recover supplies and is not really considering it to be injuries and actual... well... damage. Healing should not be something that denies damage but should be an ability to recover from being damaged.Wouldn't it be better to make medic units able to prevent 'hits' on the unit's HP once in a while to represent a wounded individual or a vehicle with a glancing hit being able to get patched up and ready to go in the coming turn whereas 're-suppy' units can be used to 'prevent terrain damage' in a stack? Roads improvements can 'heal' a unit by re supplying it. 'Other improvements can do so as well'. Favourable Terrain aids with re supply and our standard terrain damage makes it difficult to re supply or cause damage.
Of course there will be a bit of a supply mechanic being developed here soon so that will be modeled in its own way.Removing the units ability to heal in general. While working with the above system? I don't think the AI would enjoy it though, but it would be a nicer system. While simulating a supply line, but not needing to add a whole new supply mechanic.
There is a plan on the books to take away the denial of ocean travel and replacing it with a variable amount of damage taken while at sea (like 1-300%) that has a chance of being incurred each round for each ship with more advanced ships reducing this chance severely. The chance itself would be on a 1k % scale thus like a base of 500% (out of 1000%) and by the time you have destroyers they'd have like a 1% chance themselves to have a major problem at sea. (Which would in essence mean a .1% chance per round.) The same basic type of mechanic could also then be transferred to units in space eventually.Naval wise, just have water areas in general cause damage, and ships can only re supply in towns, or through promotions 'coastal re supply' and be resistant with supply ships.
Indeed this would be one of the major strategic benefits of improving the supply line concept as planned.It would give something like a unit 'saboteur' more dangerous as they would target said supply units first in a stack, thus bringing an advance to a halt or something.
I was thinking that would be the price of being undersupplied, yes. Thus it would in essence limit the distance of early exploration without placing an arbitrary limitation... though animal kills could fuel quite an explorative effort as they would add the food supplies needed to the unit itself - then the unit COULD bring back some to add to the city, which would mean that keeping them hunting close to home would be more beneficial than far exploring - or at least would certainly stretch the player to choose whether to use your hunting units to grow OR explore more.Using you combat sizes, the bigger units take damage a turn unless supplied and stacks can also accrue damage without a supply train. I think Realism Invictus had a system that showed support of other units in a stack, while in this case one can create a 'stack' size that needs a certain amount of supply or bleeds until equilibrium is reached.
So how does everyone feel about that? Do we prefer 'gamey' or 'realistic'?
But historically it was, armies of antiquity usually were followed by a lot of civilians, and even those that weren't (like Marian Legions) they still had plenty auxiliaries, support and logistic personal or a few soldiers to spare into manning the siege engines.the one thing I don't like about this suggestion is the assumption that there are going to be plenty of bodies to man the weapon -
I get where you're coming from but to me it's completely considering damage on a unit to be a need to recover supplies and is not really considering it to be injuries and actual... well... damage. Healing should not be something that denies damage but should be an ability to recover from being damaged.
That's interesting to hear, and sounds great.There is a plan on the books to take away the denial of ocean travel and replacing it with a variable amount of damage taken while at sea (like 1-300%) that has a chance of being incurred each round for each ship with more advanced ships reducing this chance severely. The chance itself would be on a 1k % scale thus like a base of 500% (out of 1000%) and by the time you have destroyers they'd have like a 1% chance themselves to have a major problem at sea. (Which would in essence mean a .1% chance per round.) The same basic type of mechanic could also then be transferred to units in space eventually.
I tend to side with realistic, but that's because I like a little more challenge. I've also been spoiled by AGEOD games where supply tends to mean at least something.So... many visions of the future of the mod here - most to be made optional. The main thing right now is making sure we determine how we want to go regarding the healing combat classes. This is to be a 'core' mod and not an option as there is really too many layers impacted by this concept - entire unit types would be made to account for this mechanism so unless we want to start making entire units optional then we should be planning this as a core modification. Therefore we should have as much consensus as possible, which is why I'm being patient about implementing things with this.
I've been thinking... The way I see it, we can go 'gamey' or 'realistic'.
If we go 'gamey' we take away the unmanned vs manned and leave the categories as 'animal, person, mechanical, naval, aviation'. We then leave it at that and pretend that the people in a vehicle or mounted are never injured and its only the equipment and mounts that need to be healed and/or there's an assumption that there's some people healers as a part of a veterinary or mechanic unit that only bother with the people that operate what the rest of the unit is specialized in healing. Our future answer to questions about how we envision things will be 'It's a game so deal with it.'
If we go 'realistic' we do more as I proposed but it might become a little more difficult for players (and even modders) to wrap their heads around.
So how does everyone feel about that? Do we prefer 'gamey' or 'realistic'?
<Define>
<DefineName>ENEMY_HEAL_RATE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>5</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>NEUTRAL_HEAL_RATE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>10</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>FRIENDLY_HEAL_RATE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>15</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>CITY_HEAL_RATE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>20</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
]
Code:<Define> <DefineName>ENEMY_HEAL_RATE</DefineName> <iDefineIntVal>5</iDefineIntVal> </Define> <Define> <DefineName>NEUTRAL_HEAL_RATE</DefineName> <iDefineIntVal>10</iDefineIntVal> </Define> <Define> <DefineName>FRIENDLY_HEAL_RATE</DefineName> <iDefineIntVal>15</iDefineIntVal> </Define> <Define> <DefineName>CITY_HEAL_RATE</DefineName> <iDefineIntVal>20</iDefineIntVal> </Define>
What were the original rates for healing in enemy, neutral, and friendly lands as well as cities?
I knew some buildings provides bonuses like Repair docks (5%) and the Herbalist (10%) in the city.
I am curious to see how it pans out.