Players Guide to the C2C Combat Mod - Size Matters game option.

[GiuseppeIII]

This whole system sounds pretty amazing. Can't wait to try it out. However, instead of millions, billions, and trillions could you consider giving these classes different names. This would solve the problem where merging 3 million units gives you a billion unit and merging 3 billion units gives you a trillion.

Just a minor nitpick though haven't played a game of civilization for a while but this might just get me back into it.

Edit - Another mechanic you might want to add in attrition like done in EU4 so you couldn't have countless amounts of troops on a single piece of land.

 

[Thunderbrd]

This whole system sounds pretty amazing. Can't wait to try it out. However, instead of millions, billions, and trillions could you consider giving these classes different names. This would solve the problem where merging 3 million units gives you a billion unit and merging 3 billion units gives you a trillion.

Just a minor nitpick though haven't played a game of civilization for a while but this might just get me back into it.

Edit - Another mechanic you might want to add in attrition like done in EU4 so you couldn't have countless amounts of troops on a single piece of land.

3 Millions doesn't create 1 Billion. It creates a Billions ranged unit. So if you had 3 units that happened to have 500 Million count (would still be millions even if it was up to 999.999 million) then you'd have a 1.5 billion count unit. It works on fuzzy math. Anywhere from 1 million to 999 million would count as millions. Same with Billions, Trillions etc... Thus its easy to see how 3 millions could add up to a unit with a greater count than a billion. When you keep going with it it doesn't make AS much sense but I'm happy with the fuzzy math as it stands at least, with some consideration that with units of that vast a size, the actual count is adjusting up and all the time with an invisible eb and flow.

Don't know much about EU4 or Attrition so can't comment much on that. I do have a plan to eventually have overloaded plot promos (negative ones as it were) and I will try to keep Size Matters in mind with that.

 

[GiuseppeIII]

3 Millions doesn't create 1 Billion. It creates a Billions ranged unit. So if you had 3 units that happened to have 500 Million count (would still be millions even if it was up to 999.999 million) then you'd have a 1.5 billion count unit. It works on fuzzy math. Anywhere from 1 million to 999 million would count as millions. Same with Billions, Trillions etc... Thus its easy to see how 3 millions could add up to a unit with a greater count than a billion. When you keep going with it it doesn't make AS much sense but I'm happy with the fuzzy math as it stands at least, with some consideration that with units of that vast a size, the actual count is adjusting up and all the time with an invisible eb and flow.

Don't know much about EU4 or Attrition so can't comment much on that. I do have a plan to eventually have overloaded plot promos (negative ones as it were) and I will try to keep Size Matters in mind with that.

Instead of millions, billions, etc could you use more broad unit terms then.

Also you should check out EU4 (as long as it doesn't take time away from your amazing modding work ) Its a really good realtime strategy game.I recently picked it up during the steam sale and it has lots of cool ideas for possible features in caveman to cosmos

 

[Sparth]

CK2 also have many great ideas that could be implemented in C2C. EUIV and CK2 for example have great diplomacy systems. Also Military system in boths games is simple and realistic.

 

[Toffer90]

I think it would be better if hunter units started with a lower combat quality as they have a hard time leveling up against animals with the negative experience modifier. This would also make them less usable in war and they would really have no trouble against animals as they are overpowered as it is.

 

[Snofru1]

Again... this sounds like a problem with the update not being able to update the units that were already in the game to the new methods. Sorry about that. It sounds like your raft may have been in game before the update. If both the raft and the tracker/scout units were trained AFTER the update that changed this dynamic then I probably have a bug and a savegame would be helpful. My own loose testing shows it working properly but if its not I need to know (and will need to fix it before the release!)

However, transport units should show what they can carry in terms of x/x. Unit volumes loaded out of Unit volumes possible. Meanwhile, non-transport units (as transports may not be transported themselves they don't show this) will show the Cargo Volume of the unit in the hover display. It won't show that on the base unit data since it comes from their combat classes (well... it does show it on the base unit data under their combat class breakdowns.) But it DOES show it on the unit hoverover in-game itself.

Make sense?

I have a feeling I should put this design under some further stress testing

All the units were built in a completely new game. I am providing a savegame where you can see the following:

• Scouts can´t enter the raft (even as single units, cargo volume 1)
• Stone throwers can´t enter (cargo volume 1)
• Elephant can´t enter (cargo volume 64)
• Red Kangaroo can´t enter (cargo volume 2)
• Hawk can enter (cargo volume 1)
• Koala can enter (cargo volume 1)
• Quoll can enter (cargo volume 1)

The cargo space for the raft is 40. Are you sure that (in theory) 40 single scout units should fit on a raft?

 

[Snofru1]

I found an exploit. Want to make some money?

Built a slinger (or any other combat unit) for 41 hammers. If you now want to delete the unit you are offered 10 gold in exchange. Now split the slinger as often as you can (results in 27 units in this case). Now delete all these units in a city and you will receive 278 gold.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I think it would be better if hunter units started with a lower combat quality as they have a hard time leveling up against animals with the negative experience modifier. This would also make them less usable in war and they would really have no trouble against animals as they are overpowered as it is.

I'd be somewhat inclined to agree but I'm not sure yet. Would need others to say it still as they're already down by 20% from their standard game counterparts. You're suggesting a 40% reduction on them over other units. Not something to take lightly. Their base stats past the Hunter unit have already been reduced significantly as well. In part they are still supposed to be very strong against animals used in war too.

All the units were built in a completely new game. I am providing a savegame where you can see the following:

• Scouts can´t enter the raft (even as single units, cargo volume 1)
• Stone throwers can´t enter (cargo volume 1)
• Elephant can´t enter (cargo volume 64)
• Red Kangaroo can´t enter (cargo volume 2)
• Hawk can enter (cargo volume 1)
• Koala can enter (cargo volume 1)
• Quoll can enter (cargo volume 1)

The cargo space for the raft is 40. Are you sure that (in theory) 40 single scout units should fit on a raft?

That's really strange behavior going by that list. I'm certainly going to look into this. As for the 40... it should mean that two unsplit scout units should be ok to load. I may have to really adjust the math as well since it doesn't seem to be quite rational in the end.

I found an exploit. Want to make some money?

Built a slinger (or any other combat unit) for 41 hammers. If you now want to delete the unit you are offered 10 gold in exchange. Now split the slinger as often as you can (results in 27 units in this case). Now delete all these units in a city and you will receive 278 gold.

Apparently my concern that the adjustment was made to modify the deletion income was made in the opposite direction to what it should've been was accurate. I'll have to reverse that. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Snofru1]

I'd be somewhat inclined to agree but I'm not sure yet. Would need others to say it still as they're already down by 20% from their standard game counterparts. You're suggesting a 40% reduction on them over other units. Not something to take lightly. Their base stats past the Hunter unit have already been reduced significantly as well. In part they are still supposed to be very strong against animals used in war too.

In my current game I found that the hunters are strong against animals but very weak against human units, even with multiple promotions. Neandertalers are big threat for them and I would never use them in a war except for catching workers or drestroying infrastructure.

Or in short - I just think they are good as they are .

 

[JosEPh_II]

How much of this will affect a game that does Not use this option?

How much bleed over into stock C2C is there already? I'm seeing it already in a new game and I did Not select this option. Perhaps all this should've been a Modmod?

Just sayin', not everyone will want this kind of micro.

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm seeing it already

Seeing what? There are some elements of basic modding that are going into core but only what would improve the overall structure. Such as reducing the strengths of scouts and hunter units at higher upgrade levels etc... They were WAY too strong even in the core! To the point they were making all other units worthless.

But if you want to say anything in the core shouldn't be, specify what it is you're seeing that you feel should not be part of the core game.

In my current game I found that the hunters are strong against animals but very weak against human units, even with multiple promotions. Neandertalers are big threat for them and I would never use them in a war except for catching workers or drestroying infrastructure.

Or in short - I just think they are good as they are .

That was exactly what I was going for so it sounds like I've hit the target. (Although once the Trained animals come more into a combat role or your enemies are using dogs extensively, hunters as part of any good war stack might not be a bad idea.)

 

[Snofru1]

That's really strange behavior going by that list. I'm certainly going to look into this. As for the 40... it should mean that two unsplit scout units should be ok to load. I may have to really adjust the math as well since it doesn't seem to be quite rational in the end.

Maybe the strange behaviour is only for rafts. I have built my 1st Canoe now and it seems to work ok.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Not really the thread for that considering those purple ones are ls612's promos and have nothing to do with this option.

Most of "those purple ones" are traditions and doctrines from Realism Invictus where they are to promotions what national and world wonders are to promotions. They take one aspect of combat and allow you to specialise the troops in that group so for example you can specialise your archers because your nation considers archery an "honorable" combat style for people to aspire to. They require a Great General to build. In C2C they are just another set of promotions.

How much of this will affect a game that does Not use this option?

How much bleed over into stock C2C is there already? I'm seeing it already in a new game and I did Not select this option. Perhaps all this should've been a Modmod?

Just sayin', not everyone will want this kind of micro.

JosEPh

Seeing what? There are some elements of basic modding that are going into core but only what would improve the overall structure.

the whole withdraw thingy! It has made hunting much slower and means I am going to have to replace the Myth mechanism because it is supposed to be very early in the game. I used to be able to get a few animals ready to convert into myths by the time I got the "Oral Tradition" tech. Now I am lucky to get any before tracking - so much for the stone age burst of creativity the Myths were supposed to represent.

 

[Thunderbrd]

the whole withdraw thingy! It has made hunting much slower and means I am going to have to replace the Myth mechanism because it is supposed to be very early in the game. I used to be able to get a few animals ready to convert into myths by the time I got the "Oral Tradition" tech. Now I am lucky to get any before tracking - so much for the stone age burst of creativity the Myths were supposed to represent.

I figured you felt like that (even though base withdrawal values are halved without the Fight or Flight option). Of course, WITH the option on you do have a great ability to develop skills on hunters to deny those withdrawals so even though animals have twice as much withdrawal with the option on I think there's a greater ability to counter it.

But... so that you understand why this is tough to optionalize...

I'm going to need the improved 'replacement' mechanism that you and Alberts had worked out would be ideal for a situation like this unless I'm to add it to the current replacement mechanism which you've aptly pointed out has some problems. Cloning the whole unit for the adjustment of a single tag does seem to be a little overboard. Since withdrawal is used on many units in the game as it is I can't just optionalize withdrawal as a whole (unless you'd prefer NO units had withdrawal - THAT option would not be hard to make!)

I suppose I could write in a way to check if the unit is an animal combat class (perhaps Wild, Subdued and Tamed?) and if it is, keep it from having any withdrawal without fight or flight being on. Would this be an acceptable solution for you?

 

[JosEPh_II]

Seeing what? There are some elements of basic modding that are going into core but only what would improve the overall structure. Such as reducing the strengths of scouts and hunter units at higher upgrade levels etc... They were WAY too strong even in the core! To the point they were making all other units worthless.

But if you want to say anything in the core shouldn't be, specify what it is you're seeing that you feel should not be part of the core game.


That was exactly what I was going for so it sounds like I've hit the target. (Although once the Trained animals come more into a combat role or your enemies are using dogs extensively, hunters as part of any good war stack might not be a bad idea.)

T-Brd,
I have yet to play with any of your Combat mod options. But I have been playing with the plethora of Promotions for awhile. The recent new game I started for C2C is still at stone throwers and wanderers and they are different, weaker (how can a str 1 unit be weaker than str 1???).

Plus I'm asking these questions because I see this taking the same course that Hydro's Crime introduction did. So I'm cautious and skeptical. Remember I asked Hydro if Crime would take over the mod. I was told no it wouldn't. And as everyone knows it did take over the mod.

I'm happy you made it an Option, that was very fair. Just don't presume that everyone will use it. And don't get your feeling hurt if they don't or won't. Crime, Disease, Flamm, etc. was never given to the players as an Option. It was "here it is adapt".

I hope it works well for all the effort you've put into it. But....I'm not gonna jump in just yet. Just Like REV and City Limits some things I just don't like and don't want as long as I have an option not to use it. A matter of choice. Who knows down the road I may change my mind and find I like it.

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

T-Brd,
I have yet to play with any of your Combat mod options. But I have been playing with the plethora of Promotions for awhile. The recent new game I started for C2C is still at stone throwers and wanderers and they are different, weaker (how can a str 1 unit be weaker than str 1???).

Plus I'm asking these questions because I see this taking the same course that Hydro's Crime introduction did. So I'm cautious and skeptical. Remember I asked Hydro if Crime would take over the mod. I was told no it wouldn't. And as everyone knows it did take over the mod.

I'm happy you made it an Option, that was very fair. Just don't presume that everyone will use it. And don't get your feeling hurt if they don't or won't. Crime, Disease, Flamm, etc. was never given to the players as an Option. It was "here it is adapt".

I hope it works well for all the effort you've put into it. But....I'm not gonna jump in just yet. Just Like REV and City Limits some things I just don't like and don't want as long as I have an option not to use it. A matter of choice. Who knows down the road I may change my mind and find I like it.

JosEPh

Are you playing with Size Matters off and finding your units are coming out with less than 1 str? That would be a bug I would need to resolve immediately.

I also found that there was a bug that may have been making games that aren't utilizing Fight or Flight still show units as pursuing - that is also not correct and I should've resolved that now - commit pending a few minutes away here.

I might be a little offended if longtime players wouldn't TRY the options (mostly because you cannot possibly imagine the amount of effort that's gone into this!) but not offended if it doesn't suit their style.

Admittedly, these options play out best when the game is set on slower settings and they are designed to make those slower games much more interesting rather than just a bunch of red-button pushes.

I know you like quick games so that doesn't leave much room for warfare which tells me you'd prefer a game that isn't quite as thoroughly involved in war as I do. I see Civ as a global war game above all other ways to view it. I know not all see it that way and some prefer the more civil side of it. To me, the civil side is all the difficulty that's presented on the path to conquest. I enjoy that too as a result... but it's not what I feel is the heart of the game.

The 'heart' to me, is the question the game really poses us - a very real question that's well modeled here: "How do you unify the human race to a point where we are no longer threatened by one another? How can you truly assure the safety of your people?" And to me, this game shows us very clearly that there is only one answer to this question - eliminate all who would oppose. Mind... I'd like to introduce the concept of the societal decay that takes place for a civilization that hasn't been threatened in a long time too... showing that there IS no perfect answer to that question! And of course, usually the industrial race to be superior will undo us if actual war doesn't, by means of tearing the planet apart with pollution and its consequences. Perhaps if we knew what we were truly striving for as a species we might be able to find it.

Anyhow, if you feel things are bleeding over then there very well could be a bug in the mechanism so by all means report and inquire to see if it's by design or mistake if nothing else. I need people testing the non-optional side of the game as much as the optional ones.

Also, take note that the realistic city siege project isn't really a core combat mod as I define it but rather a team project - thus I did not optionalize it. It's a tough one to optionalize at that since it makes a lot of buildings take on additional meaning and value and with it's conditional removal some of those buildings should probably just be outright disabled. But you may notice that I've cordoned off city repel values that arose from that project because I will have that isolated into one of the upcoming options instead. I didn't feel it had a proper counterbalance effect otherwise.

Anyhow... I've been through the ringer with a lot of negative feedback from folks who haven't been able to see the vision I project - understandable but my point is that I've learned I don't want to impose that vision on anyone who doesn't want it - much more inviting if I option it off and let them eventually choose to see what it really amounts to without their 'imagination' of what it will provide as a game experience corrupting the reality of what it actually does.

You brought all this up with a discussion about my priorities... my ultimate priority is to make those experiences of my visions implemented into game form positive for those who choose to play them. I put too much effort into it to let it be a huge mess and a bad game experience for the players. At the same time I ALSO care about the core - which means I spread myself very thin and am constantly asking for more time to achieve all the goals presented.

I should be able to get around to working on the hover info panels tomorrow or just after. And the latter part of the weekend should be free to work on that too.

 

[Faustmouse]

@TB:

I haven't played with your new options on (yet), but I really appreciate what you are doing here! I can see a completely new combat mechanism we can't even imagine now. Keep up the great working and don't be sad when people say they don't like it - they probably haven't even tested it because it's new. I'd love to see it finished

 

[Hydromancerx]

@TB
I have played a little bit so far and I must say that its MUCH harder to take cities now. I had a small window to try to take a city but it closed quickly once their defenses went up and their defenders when in.

While frustrating at the time, I suspect once I do get to take the city it will be that much more satisfying. So thank you for all your work with the Combat Mod and Realistic Siege.

 

[Snofru1]

I have all the new options on in my new game but I probably am not the perfect person to test them as I usually try to avoid wars. I am anyway testing the system for flaws that I can find. One good thing about it is that it definitely doesn´t distract from the game we are used to (which I feared). That is because it is really well thought out into the details.

 

[Snofru1]

After the newest changes to SVN I can load the units again on a raft !