Probably Improved Gameplay Mod

[Minor Annoyance]

Here's some things I have issues with:

updated change list.


drill promotions:
drill i: +1 first strike
drill ii: +1 first strike, suffers 20% less collateral damage
drill iii: +1 first strike, suffers 20% less collateral damage
dril iv: +1 first strike, suffers 20% less collateral damage, +10% vs. Mounted units

Is there a reason there are no more first strike chances? the only reason I can think of is new players are confused as to what first strikes are and think they're free damage and the chances are the ones you might fail. But actually a change is random if you get it and then you still have the random change to win the round. I can understand removing extra rounds of randomness, but I don't know why it's necessary. Maybe it's just because I think if a feature is available it should be used. That's why I never did well at Starcraft. I had to use every unit even if it didn't fit the situation. There was a Zerg level that was mostly islands that I eventually cheated on to get past and then later I realised I was wasting time and money on zerglings, I should have just used air units!

subs:
given ability to deal collateral damage to 2 units. Both attack sub and normal sub are given the following:
<icollateraldamage>50</icollateraldamage>
<icollateraldamagelimit>60</icollateraldamagelimit>
<icollateraldamagemaxunits>2</icollateraldamagemaxunits>
this is similar to the battleship except it's only 2 units instead of the battleship's possible 5. Because subs are weaker, the collateral damage dealt tends to be lower.

I don't think this fits with what collateral damage is supposed to represent. Other collateral damage units are big guns that hit large areas. Subs don't really fire huge volleys of torpedoes blanketing an area in them. I'm sure that's why you limited it to two units max, but they're more of a precision instrument. You know what I think might would make more sense? Flank attack. It better represents units moving in a way that allows them to bypass defenders and hit vulnerable targets, like mounted units do with siege units. So I would suggest giving subs flank attack against transports and carriers. I don't know if subs should have flank attack against other subs. Maybe just attack subs against missile subs.

grenadiers:
what about simply changing them to have +50% vs. Riflemen (instead of +50% attack vs. Riflemen) ?
Don't know that grenadiers were underpowered to begin with.

recycling centre:
+2 with environmentalism.
Reduced in cost to 200 From 300.

Were people not building recycling centers before?

Forests and jungles provide +25% defense instead of +50%.

Not sure why they need to be reduced.

 

[Ninja2]

You know what I think might would make more sense? Flank attack. It better represents units moving in a way that allows them to bypass defenders and hit vulnerable targets, like mounted units do with siege units. So I would suggest giving subs flank attack against transports and carriers. I don't know if subs should have flank attack against other subs. Maybe just attack subs against missile subs.

Wolfschanze introduced Flank Attacks to subs a long time ago, and it is an excellent idea. Set it up so subs can flank attack all units which can transport units. Don't really have an oppinion about carriers. AND, as a counter, you should also set Destroyers to be First Defender against subs!

 

[EmperorFool]

Flank attack for subs would be great. I agree with MA that collateral for subs doesn't make sense.

As for BULL, I have finally fixed the OOS multiplayer bug. I will be merging in the latest Unofficial Patch 1.4 and doing a release this weekend. I will also release BUG 4.3 if I get the time, but you can take the current SVN if you want as it's been stable for a while now.

 

[AveiMil]

As for BULL, I have finally fixed the OOS multiplayer bug. I will be merging in the latest Unofficial Patch 1.4 and doing a release this weekend. I will also release BUG 4.3 if I get the time, but you can take the current SVN if you want as it's been stable for a while now.

I'm ripping my hair here, still confused! Does that mean BULL has been incoperated into PIG and that's what was causing the problem?! The main page says BULL is not incorporated and I don't see any of its feature in the game either. So if it's not BULL that's causing the problem when playing PIG mod, then what is it?

 

[AveiMil]

Not sure why they need to be reduced.

I agree with the Subs->Flank promotion thing.

I also agree with MA that changing the forest/jungle defense bonus is a BAD idea. This is apart of core Civ4 tactics and is very well known by all players how to calculate odds and such with that defense bonus in mind. Why would you want to lower it?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ok, no one likes the forest change. I figured +50% on forests and jungles is a bit unfair, given forts (designed as defensive structures) only provide +25% and hills (also probably better than forests to defend) provide only 25%.

If it's too big a gameplay change I can understand why it shouldn't be changed.

I like the idea of using flank attacks with the subs and will try to mod that in. It will need some time though.

@Minor Annoyance,

Firstly, first strike chances will still be in the game - just not through those 4 suggested drill promotions. For example, the skirmisher still gets 1-2 first strikes.

I wanted to increase the value of the first drill promotion which pretty much meant making it 2 first strike chances or 1 first strike. After that, it would be weird to give less than one first strike and too powerful to give more than 1 first strike for each drill promotion. The only time giving more than 1 first strike might be justified is with drill 4. I could perhaps give drill 4 1-2 first strikes i.e. one first strike and 1 first strike chance. Would that give some relief? It would effectively mean a first strike chance was removed from Drill 4 and given to Drill 1.

With the proposed changes units like oromo warriors are going to be getting even stronger which is a cause for some concern.

Recycling centres were being built, but the +2 for it is more an attempt to boost Environmentalism. For that civic I think it's reasonable to say recycling centres should be even more attractive.

The reduction in cost I could go back on. How often are they built? AveiMil gave the impression they are marginal. Ecology is a fairly low priority tech already I think.

@AveiMil,

BULL is not included yet. I kept getting confused earlier because before I took a break from working on this mod I think I had merged most of it in (but never released it because it was not finished).

As for what's causing the OOS issues you see, do you have any gamesaves of it happening? It was a few pages back now I think where you reported it but it was to do with loading/unloading units, right?

 

[PieceOfMind]

double post

 

[AveiMil]

Ok, no one likes the forest change. I figured +50% on forests and jungles is a bit unfair, given forts (designed as defensive structures) only provide +25% and hills (also probably better than forests to defend) provide only 25%.

Perhaps you can boost forts to 50% defense bonus?

@AveiMil,

BULL is not included yet. I kept getting confused earlier because before I took a break from working on this mod I think I had merged most of it in (but never released it because it was not finished).

As for what's causing the OOS issues you see, do you have any gamesaves of it happening? It was a few pages back now I think where you reported it but it was to do with loading/unloading units, right?

Yes, I'm attaching a Multiplayer LAN save game that you can view.

To load the game you'll need to select Multiplayer->Direct IP->Load Game to get it to load.

The Dutch player is about to attack in this save. I'm actually the player being attacked, or my teammate is it least (I'm the Portuguese).

What we had to do to get around this problem was for me to save the game (I was the host) after all the troops had landed on shore and then we had to recreate the game by loading the save game and have everyone join again.

The problem did not occur when loading units back onto the boat.

You should be able to test the OOS with 2 players. I'll assist you tomorrow if you need any help.

 

[EmperorFool]

So if it's not BULL that's causing the problem when playing PIG mod, then what is it?

BTS 3.19 has an OOS issue when unloading ships. There is a mod that fixes this, and I incorporated that fix into BULL when I started it a year ago.

 

[PieceOfMind]

BTS 3.19 has an OOS issue when unloading ships. There is a mod that fixes this, and I incorporated that fix into BULL when I started it a year ago.

I thought it was actually fixed by alexman for the 3.17 unofficial patch and included finally in the 3.19 patch. This is a different OOS error?

If it is indeed fixed in BULL then that's a big relief, and I will make merging BULL a much higher priority.

 

[EmperorFool]

I don't remember Alexman's fix, so maybe this is the same thing. It was originally fixed by CivPlayers in a mod.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Alexman's Fix for amphibious landing out-of-sync

I was actually the one to originally compile it and provide it to CanuckSoldier.

I was fairly sure it got included with 3.19 as it was several months before 3.19 the solution was posted by a Firaxian, though I can't seem to find anywhere the proof it was in 3.19.

 

[EmperorFool]

Okay, that fix is in my 3.19 SDK files modified on 5/14/2009, so it must have been in the 3.19 patch.

And you don't have BULL, so what is this mysterious OOS problem? Did you perhaps merge in Pep's Sentry Actions? That's where the OOS error in BULL came from.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes, I did merge in Pep's sentry actions. Is that really the culprit? Can you point me to the fix? Or did you just remove it from BULL?

 

[killmeplease]

i have an idea on how to improve gameplay: recon mission for air units!! it was not in this mod last time i played it, maybe you've already introduced something like this dont know!


ps: sub's flank attack on transports it was my idea i proposed once on Wolfshanze forum

 

[PieceOfMind]

Don't air units already have a recon mission available to them?

 

[killmeplease]

sorry
i meant auto-recon mission (as for scouts)
for planes automatically scout surroundings at start of each turn.

 

[PieceOfMind]

sorry
i meant auto-recon mission (as for scouts)
for planes automatically scout surroundings at start of each turn.

Is it an existing modcomp? If so can you point me to it?

Auto recon missions would be very good for this mod.

 

[EmperorFool]

Can you point me to the fix? Or did you just remove it from BULL?

I rewrote most of SA to handle loading saved games better, but the bug came from Pep's original code and survived my rewriting. When I merged it in I wasn't as knowledgeable on how the multiplayer stuff works in Civ4.

There are two errors in these two lines from CvSelectionGroup.cpp:

setLastPathPlotVisibility(GC.getMapINLINE().plotINLINE(headMissionQueueNode()->m_data.iData1, headMissionQueueNode()->m_data.iData2)->[B][COLOR="Red"]isActiveVisible[/COLOR][/B](false));
setLastPathPlotRevealed(GC.getMapINLINE().plotINLINE(headMissionQueueNode()->m_data.iData1, headMissionQueueNode()->m_data.iData2)->isRevealed([B][COLOR="Red"]GC.getGameINLINE().getActiveTeam()[/COLOR][/B], true));

The fixes are identical for BULL, I just moved the code around so this should work for you.

setLastPathPlotVisibility(GC.getMapINLINE().plotINLINE(headMissionQueueNode()->m_data.iData1, headMissionQueueNode()->m_data.iData2)->[B][COLOR="Red"]isVisible(getTeam(),[/COLOR][/B] false));
setLastPathPlotRevealed(GC.getMapINLINE().plotINLINE(headMissionQueueNode()->m_data.iData1, headMissionQueueNode()->m_data.iData2)->isRevealed([B][COLOR="Red"]getTeam()[/COLOR][/B], true));

 

[PieceOfMind]

Thanks EF.