ls612's C2C Units

[Hydromancerx]

@intlidave

Before I start, why didn't you just post your ideas as a post rather than a document? Just curious.

Erwin Rommel (Hero unit)
Since he uses a tank as his model, I will address him here.
Suggestions: Change starting ability to Lieutenant (equivalent of Blitz), increase Movement to 4

George Patton (Hero unit)
Since he uses a tank as his model, I will address him here. I have major beef with the fact that he uses graphics for BT-7. A SOVIET light tank.
Suggestions: Change graphics to those of a US Tank, namely the Chafee http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=305660 . Increase Movement to 4.

These should be addressed in the hero thread.

Siege Weapons
Starting from the Ancient age this time. Three questions before I begin though:
1) Why are most siege weapons immune to collateral damage from other siege weapons? What happened to counter-battery fire?
2) Why can’t artillery units kill an enemy they attack? I understand that killing through bombardment alone would be overpowered, but why isn’t artillery able to kill anything even during a direct attack? Especially with units like Mobile Artillery this just looks wrong.
3) Why are so many siege weapons unable to attack (especially the machine gun)? While primarily a defensive weapon, history is full of offensive uses of them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Juan_Hill#Gatling_supporting_fire
http://www.essentialsomme.com/articles/british_machine_gun_tactics.htm
This also applies to AA guns and especially AA halftracks.
Now let’s get on with it

1. We inherited these units from RoM/AND. That's just how they were so any new siege stuff we added were kept with the same type of features.

2. From what I can tell they were made for bombardment, not attacking other units.

3. They were made to be defense units. Some also cannot really attack on their own such as with the rams. As for why, I wish I could give you a good reason. Weren't machine guns defense only in vanilla civ4 too?

Hand Ram
Shouldn’t have same Strength as Spiked Clubman
Suggestions: Lower Strength to 2, remove better results from tribal villages, remove 1 first strike, remove bonus vs archery units

I agree.

Battering Ram
Strength 6 is more than most ancient era units
Suggestions: Lower Strength to 3, remove 1 first strike, add +100% vs archery units

Sounds reasonable.

Siege Ram
At Strength 12 it is easily capable of fighting off almost any unit before invention of gunpowder. Undefended rams should be fragile (What weapons do their crew carry? Probably just knives.) and not mobile fortresses.
Suggestions: Lower Strength to 4, remove 1 first strike, add +100% vs archery units

Ok.

Hwacha
Why is it so fast?
Suggestion: decrease Movement to 1
Note: Consider making Hwacha an alternative to the Ballista instead of Catapult (giving it higher Strength and making it available later).

I have no idea why its so fast. And yeah it was made before we had a Balistia unit so changed it to those stats might be better.

Bombard
Why does it do less damage to city defenses than Trebuchet, Siege Tower and Siege Ram it replaces?
Suggestions: reduce city defense reduction of its predecessors, remove upgrade to Organ Gun (it will get there through Ribauldequin)

I don't recall why. Might be because it did not upgrade before or was just weaker bombard but stronger unit.

Organ Gun and Ribauldequin were suppose to be changed. I guess ls612 did not get to it yet.

Culverin + Falconet
Both of these units are only marginally different from Cannon.
Suggestion: Remove the current units. Then rename Bombard to Falconet and give it Falconet’s graphics and rename Great Bombard to Bombard.

No. I set up all the cannons and I am not having that changed. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Ribauldequin
Doesn’t fire fast enough to deal with cavalry charges
Suggestions: Remove +50% vs mounted units, remove inability to attack

Organ Gun
Doesn’t fire fast enough to deal with cavalry charges
Suggestions: Remove +50% vs mounted units, remove inability to attack

Gatling Gun
Still has problems with cavalry charges
Suggestions: Lower bonus vs mounted units to +25%, lower number of first strikes to 1, remove inability to attack

Maybe the mounted part but I think that's whole deal with these units in that they cannot attack.

Machine Gun + Vietcong
I find it a little odd that Vietcong is related to MG unit instead of Guerilla, but it works.
Suggestions: Remove inability to attack, give Vietcong ability to capture

Vietcong is based on the graphics when picking how the unit would act.

Anti-Air Gun (Light Anti-AirGun)
This unit needs a bit of love. It can also lose the Light in name, since there is no heavy AA gun.
Suggestions: Increase chance to intercept aircraft to 25%, remove penalty vs tracked units, give bonus +75% vs Archery units, +50% vs Mounted units, +100% vs Melee units, +50% vs Gunpowder units and +100% vs Animal units (same like Machine gun), remove inability to attack, change category to Siege units, reduce the number of models in unit (clipping)

I am neutral on this one since it was a RoM/AND unit. Originally I think nothing upgraded to it and it only upgraded to other units.

Anti-Air Halftrack
They didn’t call them “Meat Grinders” for nothing. Technically, this unit includes stuff up to Soviet Shilka, German Gepard and US M163.
Suggestions: Remove penalty vs tracked units, give bonus +75% vs Archery units, +50% vs Mounted units, +100% vs Melee units, +50% vs Gunpowder units and +100% vs Animal units (same like Machine gun), remove inability to attack and capture, increase Movement to 3, upgrades into Advanced Mobile SAM

Also neutral.

Mobile SAM
The only unit in this entire branch that has no business attacking other units can attack...
Mobile SAMs take quite a while to set up and prepare for fire, so this one should be a purely defensive unit. Also it should be available sooner. Represents mobile heavy SAMs - Hawk, Patriot, SA-6 and such.
Suggestions: Can only defend, cannot capture, increase Movement to 3, -50% vs Gunpowder units, -50% vs Wheeled units, -50% vs Tracked units, no attack modifiers for Forest/Jungle (since it cannot attack anyway), increase chance to intercept to 60%, increase range to 2, change requirements from Modern Warfare to Advanced Rocketry, upgrades into Advanced Mobile SAM

Also neutral.

Advanced Mobile SAM (new unit)
This one is for chasing those pesky Gunships.
Uses Avenger graphics http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=17137
Stats: Strength 100, Movement 4, 70% chance to intercept aircraft, range 2, -50% vs Gunpowder units, -50% vs Wheeled units, -50% vs Tracked units, +100% vs helicopter units, attacks helicopter units first, Requires Modern Warfare, Automobiles, Oil Products OR biofuel, upgrades into ACV SAM

Seems fine if we are altering the other ones. Seems to fill the niche.

ACV SAM
Takes place previously held by EMP SAM.
Suggestions: Increase Strength to 150, Movement to 5, Range to 3, chance to intercept planes to 80%, bonus vs helicopter units to +100%

Ok.

EMP SAM Infantry
Remove, but reuse the graphics (see KEM infantry in AT infantry line)

Yeah I never understood why it went all the way from big machine and then back to an infantry looking unit. I will have to check out KEM infantry.

----

Will post more later.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@intlidave

Ok time for some more ...

Drache
Rotor graphics don’t work right (at least for me). All I see are two purple circles. Bonus vs Gunpowder units is inconsistent with normal bonuses for Helicopter units. Bonuses vs Tracked and Wheeled make sense assuming it’s armed with some sort of early AT-missile, say this one: http://www.oocities.org/pizzatest/panzerfaust12.htm Suggestions: Remove bonus vs gunpowder units.

Hmm. Weird. I did not make the model so I don't know. Also the Drache is a Dieselpunk unit so it is a bit more fictionalized than its German counterpart.

Goliath Airship
Question: Is this unit supposed to be closer to IRL airborne aircraft carriers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_aircraft_carrier#Dirigible_aircraft_carriers ), or to what was dreamed of in the 30s? In the first case, it should only be able to hold Early Fighters, in the latter, it should be able to hold even Jet Planes and become obsolete WAY later. Bonuses vs Gunpowder, Wheeled and Tracked units don’t really make much sense
Suggestions: Remove bonuses vs Gunpowder, Wheeled and Tracked units, consider adding a chance to Intercept aircraft at range 1 (most steampunk dirigibles are bristling with AA guns)

You would have to ask steampunk1880. It was of his design I believe. See this thread.. But from what I gathered it was suppose to be a flying battleship but we lacked the proper graphics. I may go back and try to make a proper model for it some time.

Gunship
Suggestion: Change name to Attack Helicopter

AH-64 Gunship
Suggestion: Change name to Helicopter Gunship

Sure.

Double Biplane
Suggestions: Add oil products OR biofuels to requirements, increase range to 6, increase chance to intercept Aircraft to 50%, upgrades into Prop Fighter (P51 Mustang) and Prop Tactical Bomber (IL2)

Agreed.

Prop Fighter (P51 Mustang)
This unit represents WW2 era fighters (Hurricane, Me-109, FW-190, Yak-9, P51, etc). It also serves as a point of divergence between Interceptors (great against planes) and fighters.
Suggestions: Change name to Prop Fighter, upgrades into Early Jet Fighter (P59),
Stats: Strength 30, Range 8, chance to intercept Aircraft 75%, 5% damage to city defenses

Ok.

Early Jet Fighter (P59)
This unit represents early jet fighters (Me-262, P59, F-86, MiG-15, etc). It also serves as a point of divergence between Interceptors (great against planes) and fighters.
Suggestions: Change name to Early Jet Fighter, upgrades into Jet Interceptor (F104) and Jet Fighter (F111)
Stats: Strength 40, Range 10, chance to intercept Aircraft 85%, 6% damage to city defenses

Ok.

Jet Fighter (F111)
This unit represents cold war fighters. Besides the eponymous F-111, it also represents MiG-23, Saab Drachen, Dassault Mirage III and others.
Suggestions: Change name to Jet Fighter, upgrades into Modern Fighter (F16)
Stats: Strength 60, Range 12, Chance to intercept Aircraft 100%, 10% damage to city defenses

Ok.

Modern Fighter (F16)
Late cold war era planes (F-16, MiG-29, Viggen, etc.) go here
Suggestions: Change name to Modern Fighter, upgrades into Stealth Fighter (Modern Fighter F35)
Stats: Strength 80, Range 14, chance to intercept Aircraft 120%, 10% chance to evade interception, 10% damage to city defenses

Ok.

Stealth Fighter (Modern Fighter F35)
This represents the latest multirole fighters, most notably the F-35, but also others (SU-34, and Gripen are about halfway between Modern and Stealth fighters). In USAF lingo, this would include 5th and 4.5th generation fighters.
Suggestions: Change name to Stealth Fighter, upgrades into Hypersonic Fighter (Aurora Scramjet)
Stats: Strength 100, Range 16, chance to intercept Aircraft 160%, 25% chance to evade interception, 12% damage to city defenses, can perform Carrier operations

Ok.

Cuban MiG-29
Cuban MiG29s are completely run-of-the-mill export MiG-29Bs. THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THEM! Also having some other country’s airplane as a national units is a BAD idea and whoever put that in should feel bad. If you want a unique unit for Cuban culture, then how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambises (took me all of 3 minutes of googling)

I did not want this unit at all. Same goes for the Basque UU. I wanted this unit removed too.

Jet Interceptor (F104)
Includes early Interceptors such as MiG-21 (borderline Jet fighter though), F-104, F-106, MiG-25 (unless you want to include that one as a unique unit) and such.
Suggestions: Change name to Jet Interceptor, upgrades into Modern Interceptor (F15)
Stats: Strength 40, Range 14, Chance to intercept Aircraft 120%, +100% vs Air units

Ok.

Modern Interceptor (Strike Fighter F15)
Modern Interceptors, such as the SU-27, Eurofighter 2000 and F-15.
Suggestions: Change name to Modern Interceptor, upgrades into Stealth Interceptor (F22 Raptor)
Stats: Strength 50, Range 16, Chance to intercept Aircraft 150%, +100% vs Air units, 15% chance to evade interception

Ok.

Stealth Interceptor (F22 Raptor)
Supermodern air superiority fighters: F-22, PAK-FA, J-20 and the like.
Suggestions: Change name to Stealth Interceptor, upgrades into Hypersonic Fighter (Aurora Scramjet)
Stats: Strength 60, Range 16, Chance to intercept Aircraft 200%, +100% vs Air units, 30% chance to evade interception

Ok.

Prop Naval Fighter (F4U corsair)
Corsair, Hellcat, Supermarine Seafire, Zero and other WW2 carrier planes.
Suggestions: Change name to Prop Naval Fighter, upgrades into Jet Naval Fighter (F4 Phantom)
Stats: Strength 28, Range 6, chance to intercept Aircraft 75%, 10% damage to city defenses, +100% vs ships, can perform Carrier operations

Ok.

Jet Naval Fighter (F4 Phantom)
Mostly just the Phantom II here, but F8U Crusader and first gen Harrier also belongs here.
Suggestions: Change name to Jet Naval Fighter, upgrades into Modern Naval Fighter (F18 Hornet)
Stats: Strength 54, Range 9, chance to intercept Aircraft 100%, 14% damage to city defenses, +50% vs ships, can perform Carrier operations

Ok.

Modern Naval Fighter (F18 Hornet)
Modern naval planes. F/A-18, Dassault Rafale, second gen Harrier and such...
Suggestions: Change name to Modern Naval Fighter, upgrades into Stealth Fighter (Modern Fighter F35)
Stats: Strength 72, Range 12, chance to intercept Aircraft 120%, 10% chance to evade interception, 18% damage to city defenses, +25% vs ships, can perform Carrier operations

Ok.

F-14 Tomcat (F14 Tomcat)
Suggestion: I thought about it and this one makes more sense to include as American national unit. SEALs are nice and all, but Brits have the SAS and SBS, Russians have naval Spetsnaz, Israel, Germany and China all have their own special amphibious assault units and so do many other countries. NOBODY has a plane like the F-14 (except Iran, which still uses F-14s gifted to the Shah by US government). And considering that SEAL lost its model to Special Forces I really think that F-14 should replace it as the American national unit. Also add the dash “-” in name.
Stats: Strength 52, Range 14, Chance to intercept Aircraft 140%, +100% vs Air units, 10% chance to evade interception, can perform Carrier operations, requires Culture (American) AND Aluminum AND (Oil products OR Biofuels)

So yeah all these plane changes seem good and I especially like the name changes since I always have a hard time remembering the numbered names.

----

Will post more later.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm loving your thinking so far intlidave. Much of the Combat Mod is designed to give access to deepening past these inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies. You should keep an eye on the descriptions of what's now possible as they come out over the course of the next few days (part I posted now...) and keep some of it in mind as you suggest more.

1. We inherited these units from RoM/AND. That's just how they were so any new siege stuff we added were kept with the same type of features.

2. From what I can tell they were made for bombardment, not attacking other units.

3. They were made to be defense units. Some also cannot really attack on their own such as with the rams. As for why, I wish I could give you a good reason. Weren't machine guns defense only in vanilla civ4 too?

1) I never really got that either.
2)Vanilla used to allow siege units to finish their opponents in battle but they put that in as a balance point to keep armies from becoming pretty much ALL siege and retaining attackers as still necessary. It helps still but I no longer think it would be as effective to build an all siege stack as it was in vanilla. There's an odd disconnect in envisioning these battles though isn't there? The catapult moves forward to attack the axemen who runs out into the field and engages the cat only to run away from it in return. I only have a few ways to address this oddity in the combat mod and the most effective will probably be a game option that could produce some extreme slowdown on battle resolution processing.

Nevertheless, I do have a full staged plan to make it possible for such units act exactly as you suggest, fragile in actual battle but extremely capable in a support role BEHIND the front line.

3) These units are considered Defensive Siege and as such are set to not be able to attack. It is envisioned by the original designers that such weapons take a solid, non mobile defensive setup to really be effective in the least. However, I totally get what you're saying. I think they should get severe penalties to attack in general rather than being completely unable to.


Chose this snippet to comment on as it struck a few long standing chords of annoyance where it made the game feel more like a game and less like a simulator. Where combat is concerned I prefer the closer to reality replications of battle and find my enjoyment stems from an increased ability to suspend disbelief.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@intlidave

I am getting tired of cut and past so I will keep it short.

Bombers

All seem fine to me.

Atomic Powered Bomber (new unit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-119
Tu-95 model can be used until a better one comes up http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4751641
Stats: Strength 70, Range 50, 25% damage to city defenses, causes collateral damage (max 50% to 8 units), -50% vs air units
Note: It would be nifty if it could create fallout on the square where it was shot down.

Very cool!

Recon Plane (new unit)
Unarmed and fragile, but AFAIK scout missions cannot be intercepted.
Uses these graphics
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=8165
Stats: Strength 1, Range 28, can only defend, 25% chance to evade interception

Oh I like this.

-------Everything beyond this line is unfinished -------

Will I guess I will stop then.

Overall I like all the planes and most of the siege weapon changes. Only things I have a problem with was altering the Culverin and Falconet and other Cannons.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Nimek]

What about adding robotic animal units and robotic bugs units?
http://www.tvn24.pl/polska-i-swiat,33,m/kon-mechaniczny,276301.html

 

[Hydromancerx]

What about adding robotic animal units and robotic bugs units?
http://www.tvn24.pl/polska-i-swiat,33,m/kon-mechaniczny,276301.html

It all depends upon the graphics available. Making customs ones takes time and skills I don't always have. However you can always put out a request in the graphics sub-forum to see if some CFC art person will do it since other mods may want the graphics too.

 

[intlidave]

@intlidave

Before I start, why didn't you just post your ideas as a post rather than a document? Just curious.

That way it's easier for me to make changes, since most of the stuff in there was rewritten about 3 times. . But OK, next time I'm done with a certain group of units, I'll post it here as well.

No. I set up all the cannons and I am not having that changed. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

I'm just saying that right now, they are very much alike. I couldn't think of a way to make them significantly different from each other, so that's why I suggested a "trimming of the herd". Can think of a way to differentiate them more?

Yeah I never understood why it went all the way from big machine and then back to an infantry looking unit. I will have to check out KEM infantry.

You can look at LOSAT videos on YouTube to get an idea.

So yeah all these plane changes seem good.

Thank you, I spent quite a few hours typing them up. Glad to see it was not for naught.

I'm loving your thinking so far intlidave. Much of the Combat Mod is designed to give access to deepening past these inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies. You should keep an eye on the descriptions of what's now possible as they come out over the course of the next few days (part I posted now...) and keep some of it in mind as you suggest more.

Will do.

1) I never really got that either.
2)Vanilla used to allow siege units to finish their opponents in battle but they put that in as a balance point to keep armies from becoming pretty much ALL siege and retaining attackers as still necessary. It helps still but I no longer think it would be as effective to build an all siege stack as it was in vanilla. There's an odd disconnect in envisioning these battles though isn't there? The catapult moves forward to attack the axemen who runs out into the field and engages the cat only to run away from it in return. I only have a few ways to address this oddity in the combat mod and the most effective will probably be a game option that could produce some extreme slowdown on battle resolution processing.

Nevertheless, I do have a full staged plan to make it possible for such units act exactly as you suggest, fragile in actual battle but extremely capable in a support role BEHIND the front line.

Nice! Can't wait to hear more.

3) These units are considered Defensive Siege and as such are set to not be able to attack. It is envisioned by the original designers that such weapons take a solid, non mobile defensive setup to really be effective in the least. However, I totally get what you're saying. I think they should get severe penalties to attack in general rather than being completely unable to.

Yes, that works.

Chose this snippet to comment on as it struck a few long standing chords of annoyance where it made the game feel more like a game and less like a simulator. Where combat is concerned I prefer the closer to reality replications of battle and find my enjoyment stems from an increased ability to suspend disbelief.

Me too.

 

[ls612]

@Hydro & Initdave:

I'm currently exploring options for unit balancing with the Combat Mod, and so am not quite certain whether or not the suggestions of initdave's will remain valid with all of the new options the Combat Mod offers. I'm also trying to focus on Early Era balance, as that is where I believe most players are in for most of the time. I will take a pass at the Renaissance through Modern eras with the Combat Mod sometime soon, but for now I would like to balance Prehistoric through Medieval. More on this space soon.

 

[Vokarya]

I'm going to bring this up again. It was asked before, but I think it got lost in the shuffle.

Can we reduce the Explorer's strength from 8 to 5? 8 Strength, even if it's defensive-only, seems like a lot for an Ancient-era unit; it makes them really, really good stack defenders, instead of the recon units that they are supposed to be. The original Explorer was available at Compass. We have it at Writing, which is much earlier.

 

[ls612]

I did not want this unit at all. Same goes for the Basque UU. I wanted this unit removed too.

Yeah, the Cuban one was a bad idea. I probably should have made the membise, but that would be another cavalry UU, and we already have five or so if those. I do like the Basque one though, and SO did ask for more modern UUs. I'll remove the Cuban one tomorrow.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm going to bring this up again. It was asked before, but I think it got lost in the shuffle.

Can we reduce the Explorer's strength from 8 to 5? 8 Strength, even if it's defensive-only, seems like a lot for an Ancient-era unit; it makes them really, really good stack defenders, instead of the recon units that they are supposed to be. The original Explorer was available at Compass. We have it at Writing, which is much earlier.

I personally feel we should disable visibility on the defender withdraw option and make that the specialty of scouting units. Take away up to half or more of their strength but give them extremely capable means of escaping battle. This would balance them and be more true to the spirit of these units I believe.

 

[JosEPh_II]

There needs to be an intermediate unit between Scout and Explorer. Having the Explorer available in Vanilla BtS was fine but in C2C it does need to come earlier. But the gap between Scout and Explorer has been inadvertently filled with the Hunter/Ranger units. And that was not their intended use.

Maybe a Pathfinder Unit to go in between Scout and Explorer? Or Pathfinder replaces Scout and then Scout gets a str of 5 and goes between Pathfinder and explorer?

JosEPh

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Hydro & Initdave:

I'm currently exploring options for unit balancing with the Combat Mod, and so am not quite certain whether or not the suggestions of initdave's will remain valid with all of the new options the Combat Mod offers. I'm also trying to focus on Early Era balance, as that is where I believe most players are in for most of the time. I will take a pass at the Renaissance through Modern eras with the Combat Mod sometime soon, but for now I would like to balance Prehistoric through Medieval. More on this space soon.

I think we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Most of the changes Initdave has suggested I approve of (unless otherwise noted in the response posts). I think getting them changed BEFORE we apply Combat Mod changes could help us better balance the units.

As the units stand now we have basically been building on existing stats and units and sort of patched in here and there. However Initdave has taken over a larger and more broad approach that I think smooths out the units to fit better together. His "big picture" approach should give a good foundation to any combat mod stuff we add to units.

I'm going to bring this up again. It was asked before, but I think it got lost in the shuffle.

Can we reduce the Explorer's strength from 8 to 5? 8 Strength, even if it's defensive-only, seems like a lot for an Ancient-era unit; it makes them really, really good stack defenders, instead of the recon units that they are supposed to be. The original Explorer was available at Compass. We have it at Writing, which is much earlier.

Hmm. maybe 6 instead. But yeah 8 seems like too much.

While we are the issue of Strength. Ever since the Archery, Javelin and Spearmen units got their strength pushed up the first mounted units have been much too weak in comparison. I think we should change the following.

Horseman = 5 -> 6
Mounted Infantry = 6 -> 7
Camel Rider = 4 -> 5
Llama Rider = 4 -> 5
Elephant Rider = 6 -> 7
Mammoth Rider = 7 -> 8
Deer Rider = 5 -> 6
Bison Rider = 6 -> 7
Bear Rider = 6 -> 7

This might actually make them useful.

 

[ls612]

I think we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Most of the changes Initdave has suggested I approve of (unless otherwise noted in the response posts). I think getting them changed BEFORE we apply Combat Mod changes could help us better balance the units.

As the units stand now we have basically been building on existing stats and units and sort of patched in here and there. However Initdave has taken over a larger and more broad approach that I think smooths out the units to fit better together. His "big picture" approach should give a good foundation to any combat mod stuff we add to units.

Fine by me. However, my modding time is rather limited what with my school and things, so I don't really have the time to read through those enormous posts. Could you please break the list of changes down into more managable pieces, otherwise I'll never get to them.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Fine by me. However, my modding time is rather limited what with my school and things, so I don't really have the time to read through those enormous posts. Could you please break the list of changes down into more managable pieces, otherwise I'll never get to them.

Not really, because he already separated them into sections. I recommend you take one section at a time when doing them. Initdave was good in splitting them up.

 

[intlidave]

Well, if you want to, you can skip the opening paragraph for each unit, that just describes my thoughts about it. But other than that... It's the price for having a lot of units.

BTW during this Weekend I should finish Police, Medical, Doomsday, Missile and Car units. Maybe even Cavalry and Infantry if I'll be able to find the time.

 

[ls612]

Well, if you want to, you can skip the opening paragraph for each unit, that just describes my thoughts about it. But other than that... It's the price for having a lot of units.

BTW during this Weekend I should finish Police, Medical, Doomsday, Missile and Car units. Maybe even Cavalry and Infantry if I'll be able to find the time.

Where is this document? I've looked at the thread, but I can't seem to find the link, but I'm probably just temporarily blind.

 

[ls612]

@Hydro:

What animation should the new Bear Rider model use?

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Hydro:

What animation should the new Bear Rider model use?

Well its not animated so what animation did you use for the Llama Rider?

 

[ls612]

Well its not animated so what animation did you use for the Llama Rider?

Nothing I tried worked. Did you make this model yourself, or was it in the CFC downloads area originally?