ls612's C2C Units

[Thunderbrd]

Ok. I read your proposal and there's little in there that I'd really disagree with. I think some of it is interesting and the combat mod tag applications are cool to see in that its some first attempts to play with those values to see how they go in the game.

I'm not entirely concerned with whatever it is you want to do in the core. I have some very extensive plans for scouts/hunters but it'd only be appropriate if the rest of the combat mod is first applied to animals and the Defender Withdrawal option is not optional under that structure. Thus it'd only really work for the Combat Mod. Nevertheless, hopefully it will be an inspiration to the core once its setup. And some of what you do to try some things out could be an inspiration to the Combat mod as well.

I also like the idea of the Guide.

Looking at Hydro's breakdown, it occurs to me why I find the Chaser awkwardly placed. I wonder if things could be rearranged in the early tech tree to make it come up on x2 or x3 instead. Trackers come up too quickly after they do. And wouldn't it make more sense for Wanderers to be purely scout units?

Also... you noted that the bonus vs animals would increase with increasing Hunter stages. After you get Hunters (even trackers really), no animal really challenges you and the benefit of increasing strength in the ranger actually translates as improved safety against other types of barbarians. And if you scale the anti-animal bonus, the Chaser loses the only real benefit they have over what Wanderer's are now, which is to have the very large bonus against animals. My suggestion would be to keep all hunters at a constant +200% vs Animals.

Lunge, btw, would be an awesome ability for Feline units. Makes some sense to put it on hunters like that too though. And it definitely makes sense to put Pursuit on Hunters as well (as well as fast mounted units and Canine units.) Canines would make for good candidates for Unnerve too. Just some suggestions to consider.

Also... I thought Scout classes and Hunter classes were already separate CCs (and if they aren't yet, I highly agree they should be!) but I definitely like the idea of a unifying CC, Explorer. Makes sense.

Oh... Archer Bombard... How do you feel about making a Throwing combat class? This seems to be the dividing factor. Rock Throwers, Slingers, Javelineers... not sure why they would be held in the Archery Combat Class in the first place. A simple change of CC to this new BASE Throwing CC would not only resolve that issue nicely (since the Archery Bombard is based on Archery CC units) but would also be helpful to the Combat Mod development too. I think its been a long overdue CC for the core anyhow.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Oh... Archer Bombard... How do you feel about making a Throwing combat class? This seems to be the dividing factor. Rock Throwers, Slingers, Javelineers... not sure why they would be held in the Archery Combat Class in the first place. A simple change of CC to this new BASE Throwing CC would not only resolve that issue nicely (since the Archery Bombard is based on Archery CC units) but would also be helpful to the Combat Mod development too. I think its been a long overdue CC for the core anyhow.

A Throwing CC would be nice. So like ...

- Stone Thrower
- Slinger
- Atlatlist
- Javlineer
- Skrimisher
- Boomerang Thower [Aborigine]
- Inuit Harpooner [Inuit]
- Holkan [Mayan]
- Tomahawk Thrower [Iroquois]
- Axe Thrower [Franks]

And if we ever get the Chakram [Mugahal] unit made it could go under it too. Also should the Carib Blowgunner be under this category too?

 

[strategyonly]

The Chaser isn't. As I said some people hate Subdued Animals. In part because they see the spawning and AI taking up valuable turn time.

To me the use of Subdue Animals stats to disappear around the Modern era once the excitement of the Age of Discovery has passed and all the animals in game have been brought back to your Zoos. Therefore anyone starting a game after the Age of Discovery would already have all the buildings so would not need Subdue Animals on.

Actually if your going to do something like this then at lest leave the "standard" animals in Civ IV spawn (ie Lions, Tigers and Bears (Oh My).
If your also interested in stopping some, then it should be in the Industrial Era (IMO) Modern to me is a tad late.
Also if you can get them to "ease" from spawning do the less obsquire ones (by date maybe?) then to the more known ones in that order, no offense to those that know the animal kingdom, sorry.

 

[Thunderbrd]

A Throwing CC would be nice. So like ...

- Stone Thrower
- Slinger
- Atlatlist
- Javlineer
- Skrimisher
- Boomerang Thower [Aborigine]
- Inuit Harpooner [Inuit]
- Holkan [Mayan]
- Tomahawk Thrower [Iroquois]
- Axe Thrower [Franks]

And if we ever get the Chakram [Mugahal] unit made it could go under it too. Also should the Carib Blowgunner be under this category too?

Maybe the Blowgunner should be an Archery still since it requires a use MORE similar to archery. It could be its own CC I suppose but if I was to pick between the two I'd lean towards Archery.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Actually if your going to do something like this then at lest leave the "standard" animals in Civ IV spawn (ie Lions, Tigers and Bears (Oh My).
If your also interested in stopping some, then it should be in the Industrial Era (IMO) Modern to me is a tad late.
Also if you can get them to "ease" from spawning do the less obsquire ones (by date maybe?) then to the more known ones in that order, no offense to those that know the animal kingdom, sorry.

Not what I am suggesting at all. I am suggesting options the player chooses before the game with suggestions as to when some options are better than others. To allow these options will require a bit of organising by me.

IIRC no animal uses the standard BtS spawn system which has them stop spawning and also existing ones disappear somewhere in the classic era.

 

[ls612]

So this ? Doesn't that put the Explorer and Guide too close to each other? Also if you wanted the Guide to come between the Scout and Explorer shouldn't it be moved back or the explorer moved forward?

Nomadic Lifestyle (X1) = Wanderer
Persistent Hunting (X4) = Chaser
Tracking (X5) = Scout, Tracker
Hunting Tactics (X13) = Hunter
Stargazing (X23) = Ranger
Writing (X25) = Explorer
Geometry (X28) = Guide
<snip>

Yes, you're right. Maybe I could put the Guide at Falconry as a replacement for the Ranger.

Also... you noted that the bonus vs animals would increase with increasing Hunter stages. After you get Hunters (even trackers really), no animal really challenges you and the benefit of increasing strength in the ranger actually translates as improved safety against other types of barbarians. And if you scale the anti-animal bonus, the Chaser loses the only real benefit they have over what Wanderer's are now, which is to have the very large bonus against animals. My suggestion would be to keep all hunters at a constant +200% vs Animals.

Lunge, btw, would be an awesome ability for Feline units. Makes some sense to put it on hunters like that too though. And it definitely makes sense to put Pursuit on Hunters as well (as well as fast mounted units and Canine units.) Canines would make for good candidates for Unnerve too. Just some suggestions to consider.

Also... I thought Scout classes and Hunter classes were already separate CCs (and if they aren't yet, I highly agree they should be!) but I definitely like the idea of a unifying CC, Explorer. Makes sense.

Oh... Archer Bombard... How do you feel about making a Throwing combat class? This seems to be the dividing factor. Rock Throwers, Slingers, Javelineers... not sure why they would be held in the Archery Combat Class in the first place. A simple change of CC to this new BASE Throwing CC would not only resolve that issue nicely (since the Archery Bombard is based on Archery CC units) but would also be helpful to the Combat Mod development too. I think its been a long overdue CC for the core anyhow.

A few points here.

1. My point with cutting down the combat bonus on Hunters and adding SAD bonuses is to encourage the AI to use them in groups and make the use of them as alternate scouts less appealing. I'm trying to separate their roles from the Scout more here. I agree that little can challenge a Ranger (not so much on the hunter, how many Raast birds have you met in the late Preh era?), but this will make using them in groups imperative for a while anyways.
2. I see no reason for a base throwing class in the Preh era. The only difference I want in them is not to have Archer bombard, other than that and their SAD bonuses they would be unaffected (aside from something I'm cosidering adding, I'll PM you about it).

 

[Koshling]

Yes, you're right. Maybe I could put the Guide at Falconry as a replacement for the Ranger.



A few points here.

1. My point with cutting down the combat bonus on Hunters and adding SAD bonuses is to encourage the AI to use them in groups and make the use of them as alternate scouts less appealing. I'm trying to separate their roles from the Scout more here. I agree that little can challenge a Ranger (not so much on the hunter, how many Raast birds have you met in the late Preh era?), but this will make using them in groups imperative for a while anyways.
2. I see no reason for a base throwing class in the Preh era. The only difference I want in them is not to have Archer bombard, other than that and their SAD bonuses they would be unaffected (aside from something I'm cosidering adding, I'll PM you about it).

The SAD enhancements will likely only work for 'squads' of units that are acting to a common purpose, and a controlling AI for each such purpose will have to be written. I only plan to write one for city attack to begin with, and perhaps city defense. I'm not planning to write a cooperative hunting AI any time soon, so SAD bonuses on hunters will be ignored by the AI for the foreseeable future.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Yes, you're right. Maybe I could put the Guide at Falconry as a replacement for the Ranger.

And the Guide is Recon line not Hunter line right? So why would the Guide need Falconry and in turn why would the Ranger need Stargazing then?

Falconry = Helps Hunting
Stargazing = Helps Exploring

Seems a bit backwards to me. The more I look at it the more I think we should just leave them the way we are. Adding them seems to just over complicate things that were not really broken.

 

[ls612]

The SAD enhancements will likely only work for 'squads' of units that are acting to a common purpose, and a controlling AI for each such purpose will have to be written. I only plan to write one for city attack to begin with, and perhaps city defense. I'm not planning to write a cooperative hunting AI any time soon, so SAD bonuses on hunters will be ignored by the AI for the foreseeable future.

Oh. I'm confused now what you are planning. I thought that you were writing AI that would allow new pesudo-units to be created by the AI player which would in turn give orders to their 'subordinates', which may or may not be other pesudo-units. Wouldn't the AI make one of those for multiple hunters the same way it would for multiple of anything else?

 

[Koshling]

Oh. I'm confused now what you are planning. I thought that you were writing AI that would allow new pesudo-units to be created by the AI player which would in turn give orders to their 'subordinates', which may or may not be other pesudo-units. Wouldn't the AI make one of those for multiple hunters the same way it would for multiple of anything else?

I am, but the 'pseudo units' will have command roles (effectively AITypes in terms of the way the existing AI works, which means their own routines) and need special AI writing for each such command role. The only roles I plan to code initially are city attack and maybe city defense.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I see no reason for a base throwing class in the Preh era. The only difference I want in them is not to have Archer bombard, other than that and their SAD bonuses they would be unaffected (aside from something I'm cosidering adding, I'll PM you about it).

Combined with how it would be helpful for my project as well, should those differences not be cause enough? It's not like creating a combat class and working out its promo accesses is that big a job. Could make for some new promos too (anti-Throwing Class (which could also be useful against grenadiers, no?) promos for example.)

I'll be looking for that PM. Interested to hear it. Your first plan in response to the combat mod included considering throwing type units good candidates for early withdrawal and it was something I had not personally considered and liked the idea - since they'd want to get out of the fight if they ran out of ammo so quickly. I wonder if it has something to do with that...

 

[SilentConfusion]

OK.

@SilentConfusion:

Here is how you add the new resource requirements. After the prereqbonuses tag insert the following code.

			<TrainCondition>
				<And>
					<Has>
						<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
						<ID>BONUS_TANK</ID>
					</Has>
				</And>
			</TrainCondition>

If the unit already has the traincondition tag you don't need to add another one, just add a new has entry with the Tank bonus. Does that make sense?

For example, the code for UNIT_EARLY_TANK has the following <TrainCondition> tag.

Spoiler :

			<TrainCondition>
				<Or>
					<Has>
						<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
						<ID>BONUS_DIESEL</ID>
					</Has>
					<Has>
						<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
						<ID>BONUS_BIOFUEL</ID>
					</Has>
				</Or>
			</TrainCondition>

I'm guessing the way I incorporate the necessary code would be as follows:

Spoiler :

			<TrainCondition>
				<And>
					<Or>
						<Has>
							<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
							<ID>BONUS_DIESEL</ID>
						</Has>
						<Has>
							<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
							<ID>BONUS_BIOFUEL</ID>
						</Has>
					</Or>
					<Has>
						<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
						<ID>BONUS_TANK</ID>
					</Has>
				</And>
			</TrainCondition>

Let me know if I'm wrong on that. I'll work on code for the other tank units.

So far the tank units that I know about are:
UNIT_DAVINCI_TANK (doesn't require BONUS_TANK)
UNIT_EARLY_TANK
UNIT_GERMAN_PANZER
UNIT_HEAVY_TANK_M26
UNIT_LIGHT_TANK
UNIT_STEAM_TANK (doesn't require BONUS_TANK)
UNIT_TANK
UNIT_THERMOBARIC_TANK
UNIT_TZAR_TANK

 

[ls612]

For example, the code for UNIT_EARLY_TANK has the following <TrainCondition> tag.

Spoiler :

			<TrainCondition>
				<Or>
					<Has>
						<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
						<ID>BONUS_DIESEL</ID>
					</Has>
					<Has>
						<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
						<ID>BONUS_BIOFUEL</ID>
					</Has>
				</Or>
			</TrainCondition>

I'm guessing the way I incorporate the necessary code would be as follows:

Spoiler :

			<TrainCondition>
				<And>
					<Or>
						<Has>
							<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
							<ID>BONUS_DIESEL</ID>
						</Has>
						<Has>
							<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
							<ID>BONUS_BIOFUEL</ID>
						</Has>
					</Or>
					<Has>
						<GOMType>GOM_BONUS</GOMType>
						<ID>BONUS_TANK</ID>
					</Has>
				</And>
			</TrainCondition>

Let me know if I'm wrong on that. I'll work on code for the other tank units.

So far the tank units that I know about are:
UNIT_DAVINCI_TANK (doesn't require BONUS_TANK)
UNIT_EARLY_TANK
UNIT_GERMAN_PANZER
UNIT_HEAVY_TANK_M26
UNIT_LIGHT_TANK
UNIT_STEAM_TANK (doesn't require BONUS_TANK)
UNIT_TANK
UNIT_THERMOBARIC_TANK
UNIT_TZAR_TANK

That isn't what UNIT_EARLY_TANK looks like for me. For me UNIT_EARLY_TANK has no traincondition tag at all so far.

However, I think that that would be the way to do it, but I've never done it that way, so you might want to ask AIAndy to be sure (or just try it and see if it works).

 

[AIAndy]

That isn't what UNIT_EARLY_TANK looks like for me. For me UNIT_EARLY_TANK has no traincondition tag at all so far.

However, I think that that would be the way to do it, but I've never done it that way, so you might want to ask AIAndy to be sure (or just try it and see if it works).

SilentConfusion has understood how this works. It is correct.

 

[Hydromancerx]

So far the tank units that I know about are:
UNIT_DAVINCI_TANK (doesn't require BONUS_TANK)
UNIT_EARLY_TANK
UNIT_GERMAN_PANZER
UNIT_HEAVY_TANK_M26
UNIT_LIGHT_TANK
UNIT_STEAM_TANK (doesn't require BONUS_TANK)
UNIT_TANK
UNIT_THERMOBARIC_TANK
UNIT_TZAR_TANK

There is also the Very Heavy Tank (UNIT_VERY_HEAVY_ARMOR) under the Dieselpunk folder.

Also ...

- Main Battle Tank
- Modern Armor
- Electric Tank
- Stealth Armor
- Plasma Tank
- Drednought Armor

 

[SilentConfusion]

That isn't what UNIT_EARLY_TANK looks like for me. For me UNIT_EARLY_TANK has no traincondition tag at all so far.

However, I think that that would be the way to do it, but I've never done it that way, so you might want to ask AIAndy to be sure (or just try it and see if it works).

You're right. That's from UNIT_GERMAN_PANZER. The rest on that list have no <TrainCondition> tag.

Are you wanting to change the Unit XML in the mod core or create additional Unit XML that will go into a module and override the one in mod core when module is active?

Main Battle Tank (UNIT_ARMOR_M60)
Modern Armor (UNIT_MODERN_ARMOR)
Electric Tank (UNIT_THERMOBARIC_TANK)
Stealth Armor (UNIT_STEALTH_ARMOR)
Plasma Tank (UNIT_PLASMA_ARMOR)
Dreadnought Armor (UNIT_DREADNOUGHT)


So far units the tank resource should be required for:
UNIT_EARLY_TANK
UNIT_GERMAN_PANZER
UNIT_HEAVY_TANK_M26
UNIT_LIGHT_TANK
UNIT_TANK
UNIT_THERMOBARIC_TANK
UNIT_TZAR_TANK
UNIT_ARMOR_M60
UNIT_MODERN_ARMOR
UNIT_STEALTH_ARMOR
UNIT_PLASMA_ARMOR
UNIT_DREADNOUGHT

How about UNIT_FUTURE_ARMOR?

Any others?

 

[ls612]

You're right. That's from UNIT_GERMAN_PANZER. The rest on that list have no <TrainCondition> tag.

Are you wanting to change the Unit XML in the mod core or create additional Unit XML that will go into a module and override the one in mod core when module is active?

Main Battle Tank (UNIT_ARMOR_M60)
Modern Armor (UNIT_MODERN_ARMOR)
Electric Tank (UNIT_THERMOBARIC_TANK)
Stealth Armor (UNIT_STEALTH_ARMOR)
Plasma Tank (UNIT_PLASMA_ARMOR)
Dreadnought Armor (UNIT_DREADNOUGHT)


So far units the tank resource should be required for:
UNIT_EARLY_TANK
UNIT_GERMAN_PANZER
UNIT_HEAVY_TANK_M26
UNIT_LIGHT_TANK
UNIT_TANK
UNIT_THERMOBARIC_TANK
UNIT_TZAR_TANK
UNIT_ARMOR_M60
UNIT_MODERN_ARMOR
UNIT_STEALTH_ARMOR
UNIT_PLASMA_ARMOR
UNIT_DREADNOUGHT

How about UNIT_FUTURE_ARMOR?

Any others?

Just change the core UnitInfos.

 

[Hydromancerx]

How about UNIT_FUTURE_ARMOR?

Do you know what the name of the unit is? Not just the tag?

EDIT: Oh its the Levitation Tank. Hmm that's hard. What do you think ls612?

 

[draz]

I might've whined about this already in the past, but would it be possible to change the unit graphic for the tracker? It's currently using what seems to be an 18th century styled model, and honestly anything would be better than that - even if it meant sharing the unit graphic with hunter or scout.

Edit: Ranger has that same anachronistic unit graphic as well.

 

[ls612]

Do you know what the name of the unit is? Not just the tag?

EDIT: Oh its the Levitation Tank. Hmm that's hard. What do you think ls612?

I think personally that Tanks should only be something you need to manufacture through the Modern era or so, because after that you have a mix of tanks, hovercraft, and walkers in most units.