(NEW)Players Guide to the C2C Combat Mod - Size Matters game option VERSION 2.0

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,416
Location
Las Vegas

Player's Guide
to the
C2C Combat Mod - Size Matters
Game Option
Version 2.0

I'm about to introduce some major adjustments to the Size Matters option here and I felt I should give it it's proper due. This full explanation will supersede all information in the first Size Matters Player's Guide thread.

After some testing and experience with the option, as well as listening to feedback as shared, I've made every attempt to address all issues noted so far. There's STILL a bit of work to do here but this major platform rewrite addresses some of the flaws in the first version.

What's changed:
Spoiler :

  • Primarily, Size Matters now addresses those values that it manipulates on units with a multiplicative process rather than a % modifier.

    What this means is that when you increase the unit's overall Size Matters Ranking by gaining an improved combat class in one of the three Size Matters Categories (Size, Group Volume, and Combat Quality) the total current values that Size Matters Modifies (such as Strength, Hit Points etc...) are multiplied by a generic multiplicative value (currently set to 1.5.)

    Thus, if you go up a rank in Combat Quality or Merge 3 units into one to get a rank up in Group Volume, your current total Strength, among some other values, is multiplied by 1.5. Therefore, if your unit has a 4 total Strength and rank up one, you'll have a unit with 6 total Strength.

    Additional rank-ups will continue this process... that 6 Strength unit ranking up again would become a 9 Strength unit.

    If you add a point of Strength with say, a promotion, that point should be calculated into the base and then all multiplicative calculations rerun so that if you're unit started with 3 Strength and was +2 ranks over what he started with and you gave him an extra Strength after those rank increases, the unit would STILL end up as a 9 Strength unit (We just saw how a 4 Strength unit with +2 ranks would become a 9 Strength unit right?)

    Anyhow, the beauty of this system, complex as it was to code, is that if you go DOWN a rank, it simply divides out the multiplier. Thus a 9 Strength unit dropping a rank becomes a 6 Strength unit. A 4 Strength unit dropping a rank becomes a 2.66 Strength unit.

    Again, rank 5 on each Size Matters category is the balance point where the category rank is neither adding nor subtracting anything from the core unit values.

    Other Changes: More unit values are now considered valid for manipulation from Size Matters ranks. The full list is as follows:
    • Strength: Obviously the core of the system. Strength values now show a full two decimal places rather than 1 so you can get an idea of the true value of the unit as the code understands it. No more 0.0 Pigeons - now you'll be able to see they're actually 0.01 (or whatever they total down to now.)

    • Maximum Hit Points: Making the difference matter all the more.

    • Asset Value: So you and the AI's point tracking continues to work accurately.

    • Power Value: So that your Power comparisons between you and other players is reflecting a more accurate assessment.

    • Cargo Capacity: Transports can now split and merge but only when not carrying any units. When they do their cargo hold adjusts appropriately.

    • Cargo Volume: Never fully explained previously, all units that don't carry other units are capable of showing you their Cargo Volume which is the amount of Cargo Hold space they take up when they board a carrying unit.

    • Bombard Rate: Much of bombardment is determined by strength and I have NOT changed the unit bombard attack structure yet but this was the main value I needed to make manipulable under Size Matters categories so that I could include Siege Units in the pool of valid units to merge and split. (They may now do so.)

    • Air Bombard Rate: Previously Air units could not merge or split - they may now and this helped to unlock the ability to do so. I've also adjusted the Air Unit Capacities on plots and cities so that they track the capacity by Cargo Volumes so it works a bit more like carriers now and can vary depending on the sizes of the units occupying those plots/cities. Being able to split/merge air units will provide some very interesting strategic variations I think.

    • Work Rate: Final work rate tallies being manipulable with Size Matters categories (ONLY SIZE and GROUP VOLUME though) now makes it possible to merge and split workers. The AI won't bother because it really won't make a difference - the value is manipulated so that when you group 3 workers you lose no work value and when you split 3 workers you lose none - the transition is calculatively seamless. HOWEVER, IF you go to build an improvement that will require the sacrifice of the unit, the unit MUST be at it's NORMAL base SIZE AND GROUP settings - thus you will not be able to split units to avoid sacrificing as much work force as you normally must!

    • Revolt Protection: Seemed to me you shouldn't be able to take a unit with revolt protection value (I don't think this applies to REVOLUTION revolts, just city revolts) and split it and have each unit offer the same amount of resistance to revolt in the city. And equally unfair if merged. So I took the time to include this value into those that would recalculate based on the Size Matters overall rank of the unit.

  • The Transportation system has been fully repaired (at least my tests confirm this as far as they have possibly been capable of so far.) No more units falling into the ocean. You may not have known this but previously, the AI was still utilizing the tracking mechanisms of a NON-Size Matters game to track holding capacity and how many units it held. Now, even the AI will be operating on the same playing field.

    Note: I may need to somehow create a basic era adjustment on this somehow... early units are not as large as later units and thus early boats can carry a lot more than they should really be able to. Particularly since now I directly translate the Cargo Capacity from the original base Cargo Capacity values rather than the new (and now hollow) SMCargoCapacity tag. Anyhow... something I'll continue to think of how to best address - in the meantime, enjoy the early large holding capacities of boats - helps with those first island hopping cities anyhow.

    Keep in mind that the math on volumes works more on a 1:1 ratio, thus 3 merged units are now worth a volume equal to the same amount those 3 units would've been when not merged. And Combat Quality has been isolated from these equations as well. Thus only SIZE and GROUP Volume will manipulate the Cargo Volume and Cargo Capacity of a unit.

  • There were some actions I had to make to enable more units akin to the limitation on workers noted above.

    I have enabled the merging and splitting of Tamed animal units (among other things) by enforcing a similar rule onto all units that if the unit can be sacrificed to create a particular building, then the unit MUST be at it's base defined Size Matters categories (as defined on the base unit info itself.) AKA, don't merge/split or add quality to these units if you intend to use them for sacrifice.

    Pretty sure Tamed animals were the most affected by that adjustment and I found it important to enable them to split/merge because SOME of them are really good for battle but being unable to merge or split makes them too limited for field use.

    And then there's a loose thread that keeps Criminals, Law Enforcement and Healer units from splitting/merging still - property modifiers. At the moment there is no effective solution I can determine to enable the property modifiers to adjust by Size Matters categories because they aren't tracked as an object of the unit itself so much as an object of the unit's base definition, combat classes and promotions it has. Don't worry if you don't get what I'm saying here - just take away from this that until I can somehow CORRECTLY get the sum total of all of the unit's sources of Property Modifiers to compile onto the UNIT before then becoming a source of adjustment in the game itself, I cannot manipulate these values with Size Matters and this keeps the aforementioned categories stuck and unable to merge or split.

    This may be ok though since they still fulfill their roles just about perfectly as they are. They aren't really supposed to be large armies in size anyhow and have very special roles to play in the game that may intrude more on the army style units if they can merge. Not being able to merge or split may be a strength of the system for these units actually.

  • The AI has been given some rudimentary AI to accommodate for Size Matters in a fairly reasonable manner. It's not perfect, nor advanced in any way but it should enable them to compete and at times surprise players and it should not impede current AI structures as it is designed to blend into the game.

    Kudos is the prize for the first player who figures out (without looking at the code) how the AI determines when it will merge and split! Might wanna get on that too because I intend further, less generic, evaluations to advance the AI uses of Merges and Splits soon. But the basic underlying generic application here should make the game much more playable on this option.

  • The generic multipliers are manipulable by any player with a modicum of mod skills. It's just a set of 2 Global Variables in GlobalDefines.xml:
    Code:
        <!-- Size Matters Most begin -->
        <Define>
            <DefineName>SIZE_MATTERS_MOST_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
            <iDefineIntVal>150</iDefineIntVal>
        </Define>
        <Define>
            <DefineName>SIZE_MATTERS_MOST_VOLUMETRIC_MULTIPLIER</DefineName>
            <iDefineIntVal>300</iDefineIntVal>
        </Define>
        <!-- Size Matters Most end -->
    Just imagine a decimal after the first number. Thus the core modifier is a multiplier of 1.5. When working with Volumes only it usually works with the volumetric multiplier which counts the unit as being 3 times the size when merged with 2 other units. (3.00)

  • All units that may split may now split as far as Solo (1) since the divisive method keeps these values from ever going negative (though when appropriate they MAY be able to go to 0 if .001 is divided again.)

  • You may continue to join units until the maximum group category is obtained. Ultimately this means Countless group size BUT there is a limit based on the era at the moment that starts with Battalion in Prehistoric and gains a +1 to the limit with each era achieved. This may eventually be developed out further to make more specified limitations based on the unit combats perhaps. (This adjustment was made much earlier than this version but it's new to the original description of the option so I'm mentioning it again.)

  • Modified XP gains for Group Size in the same way as they have been already for Quality ranks.
There's more with the commit that will introduce this but not fully related so I'll only mention those adjustments in the SVN thread.


Still on the To Do list:
Spoiler :

  • More advancements in AI. Currently Intended:
    • Effective utilization of Splitting for early scouting efforts

    • During defense of a city, evaluating the attacking army counts and strengths and considering if merging or splitting would be an appropriate response to the current invading force.

    • When attacking a city or about to, evaluating the units defending the city and formulating a more measured approach to splitting/merging units in the army so as to most effectively address the city's defenses.

    • Get the AI to recognize the need to adapt to the enemy's merged units when possible (or necessary) and react by training more of a given type of unit and getting it out to the stack to merge into those units of the same type existing there.

    • Possibly implement for some Leader personalities the strategy reported earlier about splitting up spear units to coat the wilderness with effective animal slayers.

    • Deeper evaluation on the value of Quality Up promos.

    • Animal Merge/Split AI and motivation to get to or avoid each other to do so. Basing on more advanced Animal AI categories.

    • Possibly more - at the moment only the first of these is something I plan to do right away. This will stand as a place for me to make and keep an AI to-do list for this option.

  • Limiting Quality promos to only being assignable when the unit only had enough XP to get to the current next level. It's kinda frustrating not knowing if I should take them yet or not and the answer is definitely a no if the unit can still immediately get another promo after the current selection is made. These promos are awesome for city defenders you aren't going to have getting a lot more XP anytime soon but not if you take them right out of the training gate and eradicate all that free xp they were just assigned. (In part this is one of the things I want the AI to consider with these but also the likelihood of that unit going on to soon promote again - such as if the unit only needs 2 more xp etc...)

  • Work more seamlessly with captives! Currently if your opponent splits up one unit into three you can get three captives rather than 1. Something really needs to be done there - perhaps just adjusting the captive's group volume based on the offset of the captured unit and some display to let you know if the unit must be merged (or split) to be able to perform its usual missions.

  • Adapt captured workers and Siege Units once captured by the volumetric offset of the worker captured.

  • Animals probably need a more serious review of strength yet. With the enhancement of the effect of a Category shift some animals are simply too weak - but at least this means they aren't TOO threatening to those Explorers that still start off at -1 category shift from their base game definitions.

  • Animal and Barb Spawns (Neanders at least) should have the possibility of having preset group size offsets applied at spawning based on new tags given to the spawn xml file. As they are, you merge a few units and the threat from these are pretty much easily addressed (not that this is a bad thing to reward players for this but I think it would be more interesting if you would often encounter differing group sizes of these units in the field. Would certainly make wilderness travel a bit more harrowing.)

  • STILL need to put in a number of promotions and a few supporting tags for them to support this option properly. I'm not waiting any more for now to add new tags so I should be getting on this part of the project very soon.

  • Adjust the simplistic patch fix limit to maximum merged group size based on the era. Develop out further to make more specified limitations based on the unit combats AND era perhaps. Not all unit types are appropriate to ever go beyond a particular point.

  • Watch for Combat Calculation overloads and figure out when they would begin to happen and how to best address it when it does. I've got a few methods I intend to put in place to prevent this but I haven't implemented them yet so I can find out when it starts being a problem first.

  • Keep observing responses in the thread for more to put on the todo list. (THANK YOU to all who've provided feedback so far - hopefully these changes address the vase majority of the expressed opinions in response to v1.0


From the Beginning (for the newcomer and those wanting more basic info):

Size Matters now makes the Combat Quality, Group Volume and Individual Entity Size of a given unit bear weight and meaning. Each of these comprise the Size Matters Categories of Combat Classes.

Under this option, it is valuable to consider the 'Strength' of the unit to be the general evaluation of the combat lethality of a unit when that unit has an average size, group volume, and combat quality.

Under this option, units don't always START with average values but MOST units will enter the game balancing out to an average between the three. The underlying definitions given to units when the option is NOT on still hold meaning here as they are the core base upon which the Ranks of the Size Matters Categories of the unit then adjust.

For each improved step up any of those three Category scales, a unit will have all of its values that apply to Size Matters Modification be multiplied by 1.5. For each step a unit is reduced in any of those three Category scales, the unit will have all of its values that apply to Size Matters Modification be divided by 1.5.

There are some values that receive a x3 or /3 response instead of 1.5 - these are applied to those factors where the size and/or group volume is all that would be considered.

So for a unit that has a single step better than average Combat Quality while being of average size and average group volume, that unit will have +50% more strength and hp.

This required, of course, for a method that enabled strength values to be decimalized. Therefore under this option, you'll find all unit strengths are set to consider and be expressed with two digits of decimal values.

You'll immediately notice that not all units will always average out even from their base settings. I'll leave it to y'all to see if you can figure out what the patterns I determined for those few deviations are but animals in particular can show a wide variation as their group volumes, combat qualities and sizes were considered more for realism than an initial attempt at game accuracy, assuming that the animal strength values they had been initially assigned carried the presumption that all units represented only one individual.

A short list of those that start off 1 rank less (-1 total rank offset) include Recon, Hunters (with the exception of the Master Hunters), Canines, Felines, and Criminals. These units aren't brute force units so much as opportunists and combat avoidants to an extent. They should still have their uses (and if you play with Fight or Flight on as well you'll see they're applications are much more useful despite their strength reductions here.)

Now... these * 1.5 or / 1.5 adjustments to Strength and MaxHP are not the only adjustments these category level shifts can bring. Each category has its own special dynamics when a unit has a higher or lower level.

Let me pause here and express the three categories and the combat classes associated with their levels (in all cases, average is 5 - THIS MEANS THAT GENERALLY UNITS WITH RANK 5 IN ALL CATEGORIES WILL BE UNALTERED FROM THEIR CORE GAME DEFINITIONS):

Combat Quality
Incapable - 0
Pathetic - 1
Inferior - 2
Poor - 3
Mediocre - 4
Standard - 5
Superior - 6
Exceptional - 7
Elite - 8
Epic - 9
Divine - 10


Group Volume
Solo (1) - 1
Party (2-6) - 2
Squad (7-20) - 3
Company (21-100) - 4
Battalion (101-600) - 5
Forces (601-2500) - 6
Clan (2600-10000) - 7
Horde (10001-100000) - 8
Multitudes (100k - 1 million) - 9
Millions - 10
Billions - 11
Trillions - 12
Countless - 13


Size
Fine - 1
Diminutive - 2
Tiny - 3
Small - 4
Medium - 5
Large - 6
Huge - 7
Gargantuan - 8
Colossal - 9

And more detail for each category:
Combat Quality
Combat Quality is the innate instinctual familiarity with combat the unit possesses. It encompasses the savagery, perseverance, and combat mindedness of the unit. It can be natural or learned. Thus a Pigeon has a terrible Combat Quality while a Tiger has a rather incredible one. Among human troops, usually specialized or culture specific units carry a higher quality while the standard troop type units like Infantry have a rather average level.

A unit can increase its Combat Quality via promotions. These promotions become available when the unit attains a level that qualifies for them. The higher the current Combat Quality of the unit, the higher the level it will need to qualify to take a promotion that gives it an increase.

Obviously, a 50% jump in Combat Strength and Max Hit Points is perhaps one of the strongest promotions a unit can ever take.

But it comes with some cons that make the decision to upgrade in this manner rather interesting.

First of all, any time a promotion that increases the combat quality is taken, the unit will lose ALL current XP, resetting down to 0 (thus it will take quite a while for the unit to earn its way back up to the next level since it must now earn all the xp it takes to get there!) This happens irregardless of the Infinite XP option.

Second, for every level shift greater or less than average, the unit earns more or less xp. Thus, the lower the combat quality, the easier the unit learns. The greater the combat quality, the slower it gains experience. Thus it makes the unit take EVEN LONGER to get to the next level.

Therefore a shift up in quality doesn't mean the unit won't ever improve again but it will mean it's going to take a long time for it to do so. Additionally, you must realize that a unit will be able to level a lot farther and take a LOT of promotions that it will otherwise lose the opportunity to have had by taking this quality step up.

Whether a unit will truly be more powerful this way will certainly be up for debate and player preference. Some players may prefer to simply gain more levels and promotions and maybe later down the road take a step up in quality for their units. Others will prefer to up the combat quality on all units as soon as possible. Both should be fairly valid choices.

Additionally, the greater the combat quality of the unit, the more expensive the unit is to maintain (they demand higher wages than the standard troop) and the more expensive the unit is to upgrade (they tend to have more equipment and thorough training to keep up with their standards).

Increases in Combat Quality will also soon (sorry... still pending!) bring about access to increasingly valuable base combat strength upgrade promotions. Some fame promotions that give exceedingly skilled units national fame and prestige that makes them more effective at making local city populaces more happy than most units will also be developed for higher end Combat Quality access. (Promotion lines supporting this option are among the few things I haven't gotten to quite yet.)

Currently there aren't any ways for combat qualities to be reduced but perhaps some diseases or poisons may (though that WILL be noteworthily complex to develop.)

In summary, the more 'elite' the unit, the higher the combat quality itself.


Group Volume
This represents the number of entities in the unit of that type. The volume of those numbers are shown in parentheses or are self explanatory. Thus, a small strike team will be a Party size Group while a full Infantry will be a Battalion sized group (average).

Immediately upon entering a game with this option you'll see the biggest adjustment this option brings being available on your units. (Well... most of them - many unitcombats are denied this special ability.)

There are two new actions units can take under the size matters option. They may be Split into 3 smaller groups (each losing a Size category level) OR 3 units of the same type with the same quality and group size may come together to Merge into one larger group (the one unit gaining the next larger size category.)

Thus if you take 3 Company sized Stone Throwers and Merge them all together, you'll get one Battalion sized Stone Thrower unit.

When splitting units, the level and most promotions will be translated directly across to the 3 resulting units. Level and XP will average when 3 units are joined and whatever promos they ALL share will be automatically retained by the resulting unit. FREE promotions will only be retained in a merged unit IF the unit initiating a merge has them. They will be maintained by all 3 units in a split. You CAN be gimpy with this and use the process of merging and splitting to propagate free promotions, but the AI will not be concerning itself with this and you're obviously limited to only the original unit's total free promos. You MAY want to turn OFF battlefield promotions under this option if you don't want the dark temptation to spread these technically 'free' promos this way.

It does not COST movement or take the full turn to Merge OR Split. However, units may not merge or split if they are injured or have moved in that turn. It costs nothing to merge or split.

You may continue to split units until you can't split them any further - No unit may be split past the Solo (1) group size.

You may continue to join units until the maximum group category is obtained. Ultimately this means Countless group size BUT there is a limit based on the era at the moment that starts with Battalion in Prehistoric and gains a +1 to the limit with each era achieved. This may eventually be developed out further to make more specified limitations based on the unit combats perhaps.

Obviously the immediate impact of a merge or split is to get 2 additional units with all 3 being 50% weaker or to get 1 unit out of three, that new unit being 50% stronger.

Consider the further balance points for smaller or greater group sizes however.

First, the lower the Group Volume, the less it costs to upkeep and to upgrade the unit (by 20%(unchanged to adapt to the new method but may become a future project) so when you do the math, greater group sized units actually cost less than the three units of a lower size but not by much.)

Second, Smaller group size units heal faster while greater group sized units take longer to heal - this can be the biggest detractor to the huge group size gatherings you might be initially inclined to want. Keep in mind, once injured the unit may not split until fully healed. (This has been changed to be less drastic than the original version but not on this particular update and the method doesn't translate as well into the multiplicative mechanism so will not be further adjusted.)

With each less group size category, the unit earns +20% Experience and -20% for each additional group size. More risk -> greater rewards.

Terrain attack and defense and city attack and defense promo lines will be designed for varying size categories as well - indicating abilities for units to take advantage of open ground upon which they may swarm the enemy, or to take advantage of territory that allows for bottlenecks to enable them to take on a lot greater size force on even footing.

Most importantly, what strategies you'll want to utilize with splitting and merging will really depend on what situation you're in. The AI for this is currently very basic but it may well give you some nasty surprises. But there's more work to do there and more suggestions for how YOU have found splitting or merging to be best utilized are more than welcome!

You'll notice the mathematics involved in this do not split/merge units with perfectly measured ratio modifications for a three-way split or merge. This is to compensate for the differing combat and support conditions that larger or smaller units must face. This ratio offset tends to favor splitting over merging except that the way the odds and flow of combat work, larger units will be (on the face of it) far more valuable in terms of combat effectiveness. Combat Strength is already inherrently an exponential scale - each point gained meaning far more than the last.

The last version was limited to only a 20% modifier to Strength and HP and other modified values to keep from going negative but the new method now allows for a much stronger modifier. However, I'm still against a x3 modifier for merged units.

If you put that modifier at x3 you'll find you've just made a lot of units useless - like Heroes for example. It's important to remember that we don't want to make merging the only valid strategy. We don't have a structure where differing types of units are able to merge together. We are dealing with how many entities in the unit can actually be applicable in the fight in any given moment. We aren't enabling units to attack more than once. Merged units are much more likely to walk away without casualties but MAY not hit as hard as three fully sacrificed split lemming units. In situations where the merged units have the upper hand they can take on a lot more split units without suffering defeat and walk away with all its strength remaining to fight again another day. But if you don't mind suiciding your troops you can get a bit more power overall from splitting them instead.

Hopefully even the strongest critic can recognize some balance in this moderate approach. However, if you can't get around the part where 3 units are blending to become a unit only as powerful as x1.5 one unit then I've provided you with the global modifier to adjust this ratio (see 'What's different' spoiler above).
 
Last edited:

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,416
Location
Las Vegas
Size
Size is fixed and cannot be altered (unless perhaps we get into some Ant-man/Goliath futuristic sci-fi stuff or fantasy stuff eventually in which case I'll need a little more programming along similar lines to the other adjustable categories.)

However, it is important to take note of the differences sizes bring beyond the simple x1.5 and /1.5 Strength and HP adjustments that all these category shifts possess.

Increased size will lead to a reduction in Dodge and Precision values (meaning it's easier to hit a larger foe and it's tougher for them to hit you.) However, as size goes up, a new Damage Modifier dynamic will increase the damage by 20% for each time the successfully strikes its foe in a combat round. Thus, while a larger unit won't hit it's smaller opponent as often, when it does it packs a wallop. (dodge and precision have been recently debugged btw)

The overall effect this will have on combat will be pretty much balanced between sizes aside from the differences in Str and HP. However, it will make battles between differing sized units a greater crap shoot for both sides. It makes the larger units rely more on luck to get those hits in but they don't need many to make it count and smaller units will need more rounds to take down a larger foe but if they can keep from being struck their ability to hit easier will eventually wear down their foe. You should be able to see this difference in the combat log quite clearly.

And of course, I plan a number of promotion lines to enable sizes to take advantage of differences in other opponent sizes so that any unit can compensate for its weaknesses or enhance its strengths. This part is still pending further development.

If you're looking for some definition for those sizes, the units as defined should present a good spread of examples but if you spot something that seems to be a poor fit based on other examples, feel free to point them out.



Once this option is fully developed out, I'll edit this post so that it may be utilized for some pedia concept pages. In the meantime, as development furthers during the next cycle, I'll be looking for as much feedback from those playing the option as y'all can offer.

And to those who don't like the option nor the concepts it includes, that, of course, is why it is designed as an option in the first place. I most certainly did NOT want to FORCE this on any players.

Spoiler :
Btw, Let this stand as a proof that even if you find me arguing with you (even passionately) it does not always mean some portions of the points you're making aren't being registered ;) Even during a spat I AM listening (I just might not sound like it. :lol:) (Note: this paragraph is to address some recent discussions regarding this option - if you haven't read them you can probably disregard these comments.)


So far, my own testing is showing that much of the dynamic intended between this option and the Fight or Flight combat mod option are playing out exactly as intended and should greatly deepen the strategic considerations you'll need to adapt to. It makes Size matter, but strength itself certainly isn't everything anymore! I'll be looking to write up a Player's guide for Fight or Flight soon too. I've been hoping it's basic enough to go without for the time being.

Anyhow, as usual, let me know how your games go here.

PS: There's still a known bug (maybe) in regards to some combat results showing more than 100% odds. I haven't pinned this down fully BUT some of the calculations are kinda complex and I believe this MAY be technically accurate based on those calculations and the fact that the odds shown are including some factors the core combat engine doesn't compile into the battle calculations (such as withdrawal/pursuit and how that may play out into a final estimation of survival.) All I can say on that is I'm still looking into it.
 

Snofru1

Emperor
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
1,322
Location
Germany
Impressive work you have done here. It really looks like you have worked an all the major issues with version 1. Unfortunately I don´t have the time to test these out currently (no time to play at all :( ).

One question on AI:
If your city has only one week defender and is approached by a strong attacker you could split your defender to as many units as possible and thereby postpone the loss of the city for a long time (only one defender is lost each turn). Will the AI see this and split his attacking unit, too?
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,416
Location
Las Vegas
Impressive work you have done here. It really looks like you have worked an all the major issues with version 1. Unfortunately I don´t have the time to test these out currently (no time to play at all :( ).

One question on AI:
If your city has only one week defender and is approached by a strong attacker you could split your defender to as many units as possible and thereby postpone the loss of the city for a long time (only one defender is lost each turn). Will the AI see this and split his attacking unit, too?

While I haven't worked out any 'reactive' AI to address such a scenario explicitly, the generic 'proactive' AI sets up AI cities to be represented by a variety of strategies that includes this approach. For now, it's the best I can do to provide a quick fix necessary to make it possible for the AI to at least be competitive (and may even make the AI downright dangerous!)

You might note that making the AI capable of such a reactive response is one of the items on my to-do list yet. These types of honing refinements will really make the AI quite challenging once complete I think. My concern is how much processing time such evaluations that would enable more reactive strategies would end up costing so they'll take a lot more thought than just figuring out how to make it work, which will be rather challenging in the first place.

As it is I'm a bit concerned that the generic AI, simple as it is, is taking up too much processing time and will somehow need to be streamlined. And I'm not seeing how I can at the moment.
 

stoferb

Prince
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
309
I see one thing that isn't adressed. Don't know if it's intended or not. But you can first amass a superunit, then attach a general that will ofcourse as first priority promote 100% extra experience from battle and other cool stuff that will totally offset the experience penalty of merging, and then divide the unit again just one step less and you end up with several very enhanced units. Ofcourse I've already abused this in my current game.

I don't really see the point with being able to merge or split indefinitely, that would make it into micromanagement madness so I wouldn't do it anyway. But if it were up to me I'd make it possible only 2-3 levels either way from that particular units starting point with later era units being larger to begin with. Or perhaps I'd start with making it possible only one step up or down from the standard size, then with significant military techs you can merge two steps up and down and then three steps up and down.

Also what I'd like to see is promotions or unit abilities that makes it possible to break up or merge enemy units from battle. Say you have the promotion "divide and conquer". When your opponents unit is defeated it breaks up into two units (the third one you killed) perhaps damaged and of a lower size and consequently are more easy to kill by weaker units in your army. Or it could be a whole line of "divide and conquer" promotions with determining how likely an enemy unit will break apart on defeat and how much damage is inflicted on the 1-2 surviving armies.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,416
Location
Las Vegas
Some very interesting points of feedback here!
I see one thing that isn't adressed. Don't know if it's intended or not. But you can first amass a superunit, then attach a general that will ofcourse as first priority promote 100% extra experience from battle and other cool stuff that will totally offset the experience penalty of merging, and then divide the unit again just one step less and you end up with several very enhanced units. Ofcourse I've already abused this in my current game.
I'm a little surprised those units can keep those extra powerful promos since they require the attached general to get them. I would imagine they'd at least be lost as soon as those units promoted again. Do me a favor and let me know if they keep them even after the general only goes on to be attached to one of those units (and that IS how it works right? The general should only remain attached to one of them if the code for that is working correctly.)

If they keep promos that had the leader prerequisite when they go on to promote later then the leader prereq check is apparently not included in the canKeep check otherwise it seems like I must be somehow skipping a canKeep check after splitting. So it differs how I'd have to approach the problem.


I don't really see the point with being able to merge or split indefinitely, that would make it into micromanagement madness so I wouldn't do it anyway. But if it were up to me I'd make it possible only 2-3 levels either way from that particular units starting point with later era units being larger to begin with. Or perhaps I'd start with making it possible only one step up or down from the standard size, then with significant military techs you can merge two steps up and down and then three steps up and down.
It takes an enormous amount of troops to be able to merge too many and that's where there can certainly be a problem for balance which is why there is a limit there. As for splitting, I see no reason to keep them from being able to keep splitting until down to solo stage but plenty of reasons not to often do so. If it becomes a problem I was thinking I'd do something along the lines of your suggestion.

Also what I'd like to see is promotions or unit abilities that makes it possible to break up or merge enemy units from battle. Say you have the promotion "divide and conquer". When your opponents unit is defeated it breaks up into two units (the third one you killed) perhaps damaged and of a lower size and consequently are more easy to kill by weaker units in your army. Or it could be a whole line of "divide and conquer" promotions with determining how likely an enemy unit will break apart on defeat and how much damage is inflicted on the 1-2 surviving armies.
Interesting. Someone else had presented a 'forced split' concept and I've been giving it some consideration. Obviously if you completely defeat the opponent force then it would be sub-optimal to force them to split instead of just being destroyed BUT there's certainly some more interesting things that can be done. Such as having a promo that makes it so that the battle ends when you've injured the defender down to 1/3d of it's max hp and then forces the defender to split and kills the first split unit of the 3 (but healing the other two to full hp.) Of course this would mean that as soon as the unit attacks one that's already injured those injuries would have to be exempt from the 1/3d amount, recalled and divided between the two resulting units so they maintain the damage the core unit started with.

Sounds doable... difficult but doable. Mathematically it sounds more likely it should be kept to 2/3ds and 1/3d abilities (possibly on a progression from requiring 2/3ds damage to inflict a forced split (killing 2 of the 3 split units) to 1/3d damage to inflict a forced split(killing 1 of the 3 split units).)

The thing that worries me about this is wondering what would happen if a split was enforced onto a unit that was already in the midst of combat... the kill procedure in the code is not a simple one and I can see some possible resulting code fragment chaos being generated there since it will kill the unit during the middle of combat but it may not cause any trouble at all - except perhaps for message systems that are already growing in major complexity.

I like the suggestion though... very very interesting. I like the concept of implementation here too. Certainly something to put on the Option's To Do list!

Let's say 'Divide and Conquer' was a unit ability... what TYPES of units would have this ability as a base (or at least what types of units could qualify for promos giving the ability) and what would it really represent? Is it just a battlefield strategy? Should it be something that only Heros and truly elite units can get or units that have leaders attached (aka: brilliant strategist prerequisite) or would it be something for Mounted units or Canine units that represents an ability to 'Herd' or 'Charge through to Break Ranks'? Or should this be held off until we get into Formation Definition promos or combat classes and base a resistance and ability to generate this effect on differing formation types? (That seems to be a very rational way to address Formations and give them more meaning than mere combat modifiers.)

EDIT: Actually... I can see Canines taking on a whole new interesting ability in Herding - the opposite of Dividing, it could force units to merge if they can so that drastically split units meant to delay attacking forces can be 'herded' into something more killable. This would be VERY tricky though... it would mean that Canines would have to be able to naturally auto-target any units in the stack CAN merge due to the number of the same types being on a given plot and would also need to target those units that qualify as a target that have the least group sizes first. Then, too... how would we resolve the combat? Would they need to 'fight' and defeat the least group volumed unit of a type that can merge on its plot and then allow that target to 'live' on as part of a merged unit (that would end up with 1/3d of its max HP in damage being assigned to it just after the merging?) Hmm... definitely some things to consider here. It could certainly make you NOT want to attack with canines but if they HAD to defeat the first of the 3 to be force-merged then it would keep the low strength canine units in check somewhat and keep them zoned in on their natural supporting roles, this new feature being among them.

I'm rapidly falling in love with this idea... but I'll let the forum comment. I don't see myself working on it all right away but you never know... when something really inspires I tend to want to jump on it while there's still a flame of interest.
 

Faustmouse

Deity
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
3,524
Herding dogs makes not much sense here i think. Maybe except for the very early units, but everything above spearman wouldn't fear dogs at all. they would just fight them off.

But dividing / splitting is reasonable with chemical warfare for example.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,416
Location
Las Vegas
Herding dogs makes not much sense here i think. Maybe except for the very early units, but everything above spearman wouldn't fear dogs at all. they would just fight them off.

But dividing / splitting is reasonable with chemical warfare for example.

I don't know... I'm thinking a pack of dogs could probably get a singular dude with a rifle to move where they want him to.

Besides, the system takes into account the potential that the dog would be useless at herding if it can't defeat the first unit.

The reason I think Canine units would be good for this was due to their instincts to do this kind of thing anyhow. Then again... I DO have an Australian Shepherd/Border Collie mix... I could be a bit biased into thinking dogs naturally want to herd their foes.
 

Hydromancerx

C2C Modder
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
16,281
Location
California, USA
The reason I think Canine units would be good for this was due to their instincts to do this kind of thing anyhow. Then again... I DO have an Australian Shepherd/Border Collie mix... I could be a bit biased into thinking dogs naturally want to herd their foes.

I have a Pembroke Welsh Corgi and he tries to herd us all the time. :lol:
 

BlueGenie

Emperor
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
1,575
"Herding" should be possible with any combat unit. It's been a tactic utilized many a time over during the ages. Harry an opponent, block of potential routes, get them where you want them for your battle,
or split them off by luring part of an army in one direction with the promise of few troops to fight while in reality they'll be slaughterd by an ambush of a lot bigger army, while the main army punches air.

Cheers
 

Reisk@

Warlord
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
190
Looks much better on paper now, i see you have made sensible decisions on many critical points. 1.5 is indeed much better and more realistic than 1.2. :) Also bear in mind upgrading issues like mod inf --> exosk. inf fiasco. Still wouldn't use this though as it is unfinished.

How do you solve the arty invulnerability issue ?


THANK YOU to all who've provided feedback so far

My pleasure. :)
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,416
Location
Las Vegas
Looks much better on paper now, i see you have made sensible decisions on many critical points. :)

How do you solve the arty invulnerability issue ?

Well... as I said that's an upcoming project of its own. Size Matters isn't really the issue - just makes it more of one. Some very difficult restructuring determinations need to be made to 'fix' this process since it's really quite a hijacking of another process when it shouldn't be. AKA it needs to be entirely reinvented and this means a LOT of xml work to go along with that on units that already have bombardment. It should not be operating off of the collateral mechanism as it currently does (though similar in many ways.)

EDIT RESPONSE:
Also bear in mind upgrading issues like mod inf --> exosk. inf fiasco. Still wouldn't use this though as it is unfinished.
The REASON this took place is because you did not keep equality in your numeric system between combat quality and group volume. The new structure repairs this issue. The old really could not. This was a big part of WHY the 20% modifier was our limitation. Not going into too much detail there but I'm quite certain that if you now made the same upgrade you would find your unit maintains a balance that keeps the added group size equally effective. Won't be the SAME group size its left with as the base unit stepped down a size - but it WILL keep you at the same offset from the base value. Try it... you'll see what I mean.
 

Reisk@

Warlord
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
190
Well... as I said that's an upcoming project of its own. Size Matters isn't really the issue - just makes it more of one. Some very difficult restructuring determinations need to be made to 'fix' this process since it's really quite a hijacking of another process when it shouldn't be. AKA it needs to be entirely reinvented and this means a LOT of xml work to go along with that on units that already have bombardment. It should not be operating off of the collateral mechanism as it currently does (though similar in many ways.)

I agree, the whole arty 'can't hit the first one'- mechanic needs to be remade. Problem solved.




The REASON this took place is because you did not keep equality in your numeric system between combat quality and group volume.

Thats a lie, another bs call to you. I never changed the quality nor group volume values and never claimed that i did. All i did was changes to str values and adding it up, it should have made just the opposite, that is making the exos more stronger but since their determined default group size of exos is smaller, mod infs take a big str hit when upgraded. You know this is true, why do you try to claim me doing something that i didn't and never claimed that i did ?? Logical upgrade errors that you made in your mechanics are not my fault and not my doings.

This happened because when mod inf is produced, it is produced as a bigger unit in terms of men than exoskeletons. So when upgraded, thousands of men vanish into thin air. Sorry to say but your reliability on feedback such as these is thus empirically proved to be very weak and unreliable.


The new structure repairs this issue. The old really could not.

You could have just changed the default size of the exoskel. unit in terms of men when it is produced to keep the upgrade path logical and effective. Simplest way to fix that.


This was a big part of WHY the 20% modifier was our limitation.

Strength and default group size are totally different variables. Another bs call.


Not going into too much detail there but I'm quite certain that if you now made the same upgrade you would find your unit maintains a balance that keeps the added group size equally effective. Won't be the SAME group size its left with as the base unit stepped down a size - but it WILL keep you at the same offset from the base value. Try it... you'll see what I mean.

Try the broken thing twice ? What a joke. Arty issue alone makes it totally broken and how can there be any reason to develop ai to a mechanic that has such huge exploits ? I might try it when it is complete and after carefully reading what it changes. Until then the default system works fine and more logically, only fault is micromanagement and that i prefer far above broken and unfinished mechanics.

Some progress is seen but this is still far from playable. Players want to play finished products, not do continuous beta testing so please finish the mechanics before adding them into the mod. You could finish and polish them with time and in peace at your workbench instead of stressing and hurrying to fix them because they are in the mod and in desperate need of fixing so why hurry to put yourself into agony ?

This rushing and lack of testing clearly is the biggest issue in this great mod, once again it is proven. It is also the one most easily fixed. Just stop the fekkin' rushing.
 

Rwn

King
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
711
This rushing and lack of testing clearly is the biggest issue in this great mod, once again it is proven. It is also the one most easily fixed. Just stop the fekkin' rushing.

Just to voice a different opinion, I appreciate how things are done currently: the new feature is available for anyone to test through a non-checked option by default so newcomers aren't confused by bugs. The modder can thus gather more feedback and use more of his time on the implementation task which he's the only one that can perform.

Up until now my experience with v34 has been surprisingly (for such a complex mod) devoid of non-anecdotical bugs.
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,416
Location
Las Vegas
Thank you RWN... modding is a process that relies on the efforts of those playing the mod to report problems. We do all we can to react to those reports. No amount of testing can keep all problems out of any effort and some things are going to initially be available in truly prototype phase - such as this project itself. So the polite feedback of those who play these projects in development is very appreciated.

It's the way things get done and if someone has a problem with playing an 'endless beta', they should stick to vanilla civIV or select another game to play entirely and leave us to work with those who can work with us. ALL mods are an endless beta until the project is complete and the developer is no longer listening to feedback because he's working on other things... ONLY C2C is capable of making so many adjustments along the way while maintaining savegame compatibility. If we didn't use this unique ability to its fullest benefit we'd really be hindered. It's this lack of hindrance that allows us to build the most aggressively developed mod that's ever been seen for civ IV.

Is there ever really a call to derisively scorn and antagonize the people who are providing you with a pass time you enjoy? Are you really that miserable that you must whine about imperfections rather than simply being helpful in pointing them out?

I suppose it's easier to be rude from the sidelines if you're not willing to get off your own ass and actually try to help... But of course why would you do that when you'd know you'd eventually be the target of someone else trying to frame your work as being somehow rotten? Since that's what you do to others you'd naturally expect the same feedback from others regarding yourself and much better to just sit on your hands and do nothing than to suffer what you dish out right?

Thats a lie, another bs call to you. I never changed the quality nor group volume values and never claimed that i did. All i did was changes to str values and adding it up, it should have made just the opposite, that is making the exos more stronger but since their determined default group size of exos is smaller, mod infs take a big str hit when upgraded. You know this is true, why do you try to claim me doing something that i didn't and never claimed that i did ?? Logical upgrade errors that you made in your mechanics are not my fault and not my doings.
The group size does reduce, as it often may among many differing types of upgrades. Generally when this happens, Combat Quality will increase to balance this reduction of group size out. That's how the whole thing is supposed to work and why Size, Group Volume and Combat Quality must all be equal in the Strength modifiers they give. You had stated you'd changed the group volume modifiers to size so in your fileset you could not lose a group volume rank and gain a combat quality rank and have the resulting gain equal the loss. You'd made Group Volume more valuable thus when that was lost, you saw a decline in strength.

Now... there's always the possibility that a unit upgrade doesn't maintain balance between the amount of ranks gained/lost across the three categories and if this takes place it's probably a mistake in the xml. But I'm suspecting that the way you structured your modifiers set this up as an issue because if you ever varied from a flat modifier being exactly the same increment at all ranks on all three categories you'd run into this problem at some point because a gain in one category would not fully equate to the loss in another.

The reason this kept us to 20% modifiers per rank gain or loss was because I needed a margin of 5 ranks down from the baseline to get to -100% (aka NO strength). I did not want the first rank of any of the 3 categories to represent a modifier greater than -80% because at a true -100% you should have NO strength no matter what unit type you've got.

Therefore, with additive modifiers this was the highest I could thus make these modifiers. Admittedly it didn't work as well as the current multiplicative method.


This happened because when mod inf is produced, it is produced as a bigger unit in terms of men than exoskeletons. So when upgraded, thousands of men vanish into thin air. Sorry to say but your reliability on feedback such as these is thus empirically proved to be very weak and unreliable.
And you continue to explain what I'm trying to say. The structure of Size Matters relies on being able to lose a group volume rank and gain a rank in either Size or Quality and that would make the same difference.


You could have just changed the default size of the exoskel. unit in terms of men when it is produced to keep the upgrade path logical and effective. Simplest way to fix that.
In later eras many units are able to go on fewer men for the same impact and would do so because of the enormous investment into the technology utilized to equip those fewer 'elite' men chosen to wield this expensive technology. So I COULD have kept the group size the same but it doesn't fit as well to do so since warfare strategy is shifting to quality over quantity. And if the system was un-tweaked it would smoothly transition as it was intended to (and does in many other places across unit upgrade paths.)

Strength and default group size are totally different variables. Another bs call.
Regardless of how you see it, it's fixed at this point with the new mathematical structure. It is now completely impossible to make a rank in Combat Quality, Group Volume or Size differ in it's base strength and hp (and many other modifiers) from one another. They are all now enforced as equivalent. If you gain a Quality rank and lose a Volume rank, you'll have the same overall strength and hp as you started with. And vice versa.
 

stoferb

Prince
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
309
Well I haven't played the new improved combat mod detailed here. But the older one that comes with version 34 without SVN updates, when you split a unit that is attached to a general, the general splits into three aswell. If the code for the new and improved system forces the general to only stay with one of the units I don't know as I haven't tried it yet.

When it comes to merging/splitting promos I was mostly thinking not so much in the surviving unit/units having lowered health bars but getting some kind of temporary anti-promotion that makes them less useful in combat. Afterall wether merged or divided, they've been tricked into an unwanted situation and are not really prepared for a fight. Obviously if you can kill the unit easily you don't want to divide it, better to just kill it. I was thinking it would be some kind of bombardment alternative for cavalry, or maybe if the odds are under say 50% for a kill it will automatically try to divide the unit instead and have a much greater chance of success. Force-merging I haven't really had any bright ideas about yet, wouldn't call it herding though, "battlefield tactician" or something perhaps.
 

Rwn

King
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
711
A few comments after trying it a bit :
- When splitting my starting clubman in three, two of them miss several orders (autopillaging, etc. - see below)

Here's what I get for the first unit after merging:


And for the other two:


- After splitting, I can immediately merge the units again, but if I move the units a bit, then put them back on the same place, the merge button no longer appear. Of course, all units were at full health.
(see image above: the three identical units were splitted and thus are identical, but the merge button has disappeared)

- A suggestion: at the beginning of the game, exploration becomes way too easy with potentially 18 units to move after splitting: even if they'd die at the first battle (which would often be the case anyway without splitting the base clubman/stone thrower when meeting your first bear or lion), there are so many of them with few animals at the beginning of the game that you can quickly explore the whole continent. I'd thus suggest that the starting units are "solo" units (or that you get 1 "party" unit instead of a clubman + a stone thrower) - which would not be absurd either from a realistic point of view for a small tribe...
 

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,416
Location
Las Vegas
Well I haven't played the new improved combat mod detailed here. But the older one that comes with version 34 without SVN updates, when you split a unit that is attached to a general, the general splits into three aswell. If the code for the new and improved system forces the general to only stay with one of the units I don't know as I haven't tried it yet.
Hmm... that should never have been possible so it's something to investigate and I doubt that part of the code had to adjust at all for the new version. I may have to debug that still.

When it comes to merging/splitting promos I was mostly thinking not so much in the surviving unit/units having lowered health bars but getting some kind of temporary anti-promotion that makes them less useful in combat. Afterall wether merged or divided, they've been tricked into an unwanted situation and are not really prepared for a fight. Obviously if you can kill the unit easily you don't want to divide it, better to just kill it. I was thinking it would be some kind of bombardment alternative for cavalry, or maybe if the odds are under say 50% for a kill it will automatically try to divide the unit instead and have a much greater chance of success. Force-merging I haven't really had any bright ideas about yet, wouldn't call it herding though, "battlefield tactician" or something perhaps.
hmm... there's a lot of divided opinions on the HOW to go about these things. So you're saying it wouldn't represent an actual attack. If your unit isn't getting close and personal and putting itself in danger to achieve the effect, how does it actually accomplish a forced merge or split against another unit?

If you can kill the unit easily you don't want to divide it, no, but if you only need to damage 1/3d of the way and it's considered a victory, it'll just require a few more troops in your stack to finish the job and it thus makes taking on those much larger or more powerful units much more possible. That would be the benefit of the ability. Unfortunately you would not be able to set the will to split on or off - once you had the promo you have the promo so you wouldn't want it on all your units (the AI for that would be a little more tricky than most promotions and would affect attacks too.)

Though the alternative about the odds is perhaps possible... not sure it'd be a patently good way to go though as every player would feel the amount of risk acceptable would differ greatly. And odds are not always 100% accurate to the reality of a combat prediction in the full eventual combat mod scope.

Much more complexity will get rather convoluted and that's always bad for the code and for game clarity.


A few comments after trying it a bit :
- When splitting my starting clubman in three, two of them miss several orders (autopillaging, etc. - see below)
Interesting... not an effect I'd noticed nor one I can really explain. Very odd indeed. I might have to test on that to see what's keeping those mission buttons from coming up on those units.

- After splitting, I can immediately merge the units again, but if I move the units a bit, then put them back on the same place, the merge button no longer appear. Of course, all units were at full health.
(see image above: the three identical units were splitted and thus are identical, but the merge button has disappeared)
According to the image none of the units have moved BUT... are any of those units defined as grouped with each other? Grouped units cannot merge or split to protect against a code error if you select multiple units to start merging at once. You MAY be able to get that to open up by GROUPING them all then enacting the SPLIT GROUP mission. Try that - just a possibility that may be something of the 'fault' there. Otherwise I'm not sure and I'll have to see if I can replicate and debug or at least fully diagnose.

- A suggestion: at the beginning of the game, exploration becomes way too easy with potentially 18 units to move after splitting: even if they'd die at the first battle (which would often be the case anyway without splitting the base clubman/stone thrower when meeting your first bear or lion), there are so many of them with few animals at the beginning of the game that you can quickly explore the whole continent. I'd thus suggest that the starting units are "solo" units (or that you get 1 "party" unit instead of a clubman + a stone thrower) - which would not be absurd either from a realistic point of view for a small tribe...
I only split my first unit once - it's sufficient to cover a lot of ground (about as much as any further splits would allow unless you can explore in ALL directions) and the unit is not a total sacrifice - often takes down some early animals and thus assists the ever important early growth of the city. If I split further then yes, those units would be worthless against the smallest of animals and you might get more explored faster but would gain nothing but goodie huts in the process.

Also... a truly clever player will wait for wanderers to reveal goodie huts since those are the first units to gain a bonus to what is revealed by goodies. So again, there's a major tradeoff between revealing goodies with the first unit(s) and showing some patience to wait for better results. The value of this is really dependant on whether you're likely to lose those out to nearby competitor civs that are quite happy to take them whether the results are as good as possible or not - and that could be, if lucky, determined by having a greater number of split units.

My point here is that when you look at it all, yes it makes exploration easier in the beginning BUT not in the most optimal way THUS there are some negative consequences to the strategy and since there are it makes the strategy an interesting decision - those are what we're looking for in the game design. Most animals are so much weaker that the strength of an undivided or only singly split stone thrower is not uncompetitive in most wilderness but to divide further makes them sure snacks for any animal they come up on. That can make the longevity factor of the further split units actually backfire and you can actually get less explored than you would with un-split or singly split units.
 

stoferb

Prince
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
309
I'll clarify. With the first idea I don't mean that force-merging or force-splitting an enemy should should pose no danger to yourself but that perhaps there would be a special button for it as it is with bombardment so you can choose to utilize it or not. And when the unit use it it will attack as usual and risk to die as usual, but it will have a better chance of redrawing from the battle and possibly achieving it's intended forced split/merge. And it sort of will have a better chance of survival aswell as it only needs to damage the unit atleast 1/3 instead of killing it.

To dive in to the other discussion. I did split my early scout and eventually I did split them again when they had gone a bit further apart. Thing is, you want those huts early anyway unless you are fairly certain nobody else will get them, and in early game, because you don't know how close you are to other civs, maximum number of scouts is a pretty solid move compared to waiting forever for better units. The one thing that did keep me from not splitting explorating units early on too much is that you pay extra upkeep for number of units with the civics you have in the early game so it's expensive. I had to grow my economy a bit before I could afford splitting them again.
 

Rwn

King
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
711
According to the image none of the units have moved BUT... are any of those units defined as grouped with each other? Grouped units cannot merge or split to protect against a code error if you select multiple units to start merging at once. You MAY be able to get that to open up by GROUPING them all then enacting the SPLIT GROUP mission. Try that - just a possibility that may be something of the 'fault' there. Otherwise I'm not sure and I'll have to see if I can replicate and debug or at least fully diagnose.

You're right, having a group was the reason. To avoid confusion, is it possible that when you're in this situation, the merge button becomes grayed out (maybe with an information tooltip) instead of disappearing?


I only split my first unit once - it's sufficient to cover a lot of ground (about as much as any further splits would allow unless you can explore in ALL directions) and the unit is not a total sacrifice - often takes down some early animals and thus assists the ever important early growth of the city. If I split further then yes, those units would be worthless against the smallest of animals and you might get more explored faster but would gain nothing but goodie huts in the process.

From my (short) experience with this option, there are quite a lot of wimpy animals with less than 0.1 strength that even a fully splitted clubman is able to fight... Though there are stronger animals, there are not many animals "in the middle", i.e. that are strong enough to kill that 0.44 strength unit but not a 0.66 or a 1.00 one.

The issue is not only goodie huts, but also natural wonders, good city locations, resources when they appear later one and more generally knowing all the continent before any enemy is in a position to "block" you.

That's why I think having at most a single military unit at the begining (or two smaller ones) would be more than sufficient - you can build them if you really need more afterall. But that's not a big deal...
 
Top Bottom