Quick Questions , Quick Answers

[Somebody613]

So???

 

[Somebody613]

Still waiting, but have one more question.
What are the conditions of capturing a city without razing it, besides it being size 2+?
Can it ever be done with a size 1 city (aka in Prehistory of Eternity)?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Still waiting, but have one more question.
What are the conditions of capturing a city without razing it, besides it being size 2+?
Can it ever be done with a size 1 city (aka in Prehistory of Eternity)?

Used to be you could as long as it had beyond the first level of culture - I don't think that condition is still in play though. Not sure when it was removed.

 

[Somebody613]

Used to be you could as long as it had beyond the first level of culture - I don't think that condition is still in play though. Not sure when it was removed.

So does it mean that the Eternity world conquest MUST stall for hundreds of turns, no matter what?
That is, if I want to capture the cities, not just eliminate them.
That's disappointing.

So, what's new about Quality?

 

[Thunderbrd]

So does it mean that the Eternity world conquest MUST stall for hundreds of turns, no matter what?
That is, if I want to capture the cities, not just eliminate them.
That's disappointing.

So, what's new about Quality?

I spent some time today realizing I'm completely incapable of debugging anymore and must relearn how to mod from scratch again basically.

 

[Somebody613]

I spent some time today realizing I'm completely incapable of debugging anymore and must relearn how to mod from scratch again basically.

If you are not joking, I feel kinda sorry for you.
No, really.

 

[Somebody613]

Quality again.
I added a very basic Prereq (Species_Human), yet it changed nothing whatsoever.
I literally gave a unit (via WB) the lowest Quality promotion and left it exactly enough XP to promote ONCE (at a huge level as well).
Did NOTHING.
Quality promotions don't even appear on the unit.
So it is a BUG.
Please, FIX it.

 

[Blazenclaw]

So it is a BUG. Please, FIX it.

Chill man; there are many things to be fixed, and nobody is paid to work on this...
Good news though, TB did push a fix that'll probably solve this issue, so next SVN update you can see if it works for you or not.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yeah I just had to update a few things that I've let go out of date since when Bill was working on getting stuff further setup. With a little direction pointing by Toffer, I was able to remember what I needed to do here once I got it working again.

The problem was, well... mathematical. And yes, it's fixed on git now and we're working on updating to SVN.

 

[Somebody613]

Yeah I just had to update a few things that I've let go out of date since when Bill was working on getting stuff further setup. With a little direction pointing by Toffer, I was able to remember what I needed to do here once I got it working again.

The problem was, well... mathematical. And yes, it's fixed on git now and we're working on updating to SVN.

Thanks a huge.
Let's see if I can decipher the solution on my own when I see it, loool.



EDIT

Well, it definitely works now, THANKS AGAIN.

And you already explained why it wouldn't work with "scenario'd units", which is intentional.

But there IS a weird thing that isn't a bug, yet is a rather strange decision.
Those Quality promotions STACK (as in, not REPLACE each other) - and HOW.
Which means that a much "worse" unit can eventually get much MORE power up than a unit that starts as "better" - since it'd get more STACKED Quality promotions eventually.
Is this balanced actual-strength-wise?
For example, the "weakest unit" in the entire game can merely get TWO Quality Ups (see screenshots) - but I'm sure there are units who can get a lot more.
Does this even make sense Quality-wise either?
I'd rather think it's more logical to make "early" units of much lower Quality, and it should just get replaced, not STACKED.
But this isn't a BUG, so your decisions are yours.
I'm just wondering aloud, lol.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Merges stack and this is in essence the same as a merge. This is also why you lose ALL XP AND gain a penalty to XP gain after you take a quality up promo. Also makes it so that quality-upped units cannot merge with other units that haven't improved their quality to the same degree. That may matter more soon.

 

[Somebody613]

Merges stack and this is in essence the same as a merge. This is also why you lose ALL XP AND gain a penalty to XP gain after you take a quality up promo. Also makes it so that quality-upped units cannot merge with other units that haven't improved their quality to the same degree. That may matter more soon.

Stacking Merges make just as little sense as well, lol.
Let's be honest, both systems kinda require an overhaul, so you only have ONE defining "label" per unit, and it changes accordingly to what it is representing.
Like I said, stacking 3x Quality on a unit of Q1 (resulting in Q4) makes a totally different *UNIT* than if it was Q3 and got 1x Quality to Q4.
Yet logically there should NOT be any difference between them (both are the same Q4) - or at least it should be somehow recalculated to avoid those differences.
It looks REALLY weird to me the way it is now, sorry.
That said, I would also expect (and prefer) if lower Quality units were those of ACTUAL "lower quality".
It's totally weird to see a Stone Thrower of a clearly higher-than-middle Quality right out the cave.
If you ask me, ALL Prehistoric units should be the LOWEST Quality, not above-middle.
Note that Merging actually works better in this context, though it's also still "incorrect", since units start at very varied Sizes, again mostly unrelated to their "historicity".
I've just got a very funky IDEA for you (for the future modmods on Combat).
You should be able to CHOOSE the Size of the units you build (regulated by buildings and other stuff) - that'd be much better than making units of various Sizes and wasting time on Merging them forever.
The same can go for Quality as well.
Just BUILD a "Merged x27, Quality x5" unit, lol - you'd get the same outcome for much less mouse-clicking, hehehe.
I really suggest planning in that direction when you (the ones who are involved with the Combat modmods, of course) have free time.
Aaand I can't stop my running thoughts now, lol.
You could even make buildings upgradeable (I don't mean replaceable like now, but literally making them bigger/better, while NOT changing the building "type").
Maybe using resources (or at least "requiring X of Resource_Z", and so on).
Damn, if only I could magically transform my IDEAS into a working game CODE.
LOOOL!!!

 

[tmv]

If you ask me, ALL Prehistoric units should be the LOWEST Quality, not above-middle.

I disagree. Quality is about how well you can handle your weapons, and about your fighting spirit. Prehistoric units were not lacking in either.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Stacking Merges make just as little sense as well, lol.
Let's be honest, both systems kinda require an overhaul, so you only have ONE defining "label" per unit, and it changes accordingly to what it is representing.
Like I said, stacking 3x Quality on a unit of Q1 (resulting in Q4) makes a totally different *UNIT* than if it was Q3 and got 1x Quality to Q4.
Yet logically there should NOT be any difference between them (both are the same Q4) - or at least it should be somehow recalculated to avoid those differences.
It looks REALLY weird to me the way it is now, sorry.
That said, I would also expect (and prefer) if lower Quality units were those of ACTUAL "lower quality".
It's totally weird to see a Stone Thrower of a clearly higher-than-middle Quality right out the cave.
If you ask me, ALL Prehistoric units should be the LOWEST Quality, not above-middle.
Note that Merging actually works better in this context, though it's also still "incorrect", since units start at very varied Sizes, again mostly unrelated to their "historicity".
I've just got a very funky IDEA for you (for the future modmods on Combat).
You should be able to CHOOSE the Size of the units you build (regulated by buildings and other stuff) - that'd be much better than making units of various Sizes and wasting time on Merging them forever.
The same can go for Quality as well.
Just BUILD a "Merged x27, Quality x5" unit, lol - you'd get the same outcome for much less mouse-clicking, hehehe.
I really suggest planning in that direction when you (the ones who are involved with the Combat modmods, of course) have free time.
Aaand I can't stop my running thoughts now, lol.
You could even make buildings upgradeable (I don't mean replaceable like now, but literally making them bigger/better, while NOT changing the building "type").
Maybe using resources (or at least "requiring X of Resource_Z", and so on).
Damn, if only I could magically transform my IDEAS into a working game CODE.
LOOOL!!!

Well... at least I got you thinking.

 

[Somebody613]

Well... at least I got you thinking.

I hope it was MUTUAL.

 

[Somebody613]

I disagree. Quality is about how well you can handle your weapons, and about your fighting spirit. Prehistoric units were not lacking in either.

Says who?
I read it as "how EFFECTIVE they are", which means DANGEROUS, not WELL-TRAINED.
On the other hand, "morale" and/or "initiative" should've been introduced long ago, lol.
Units really should have a lot more in them than just plain ATK / DEF.
In fact, I'm disappointed that Civilization dropped the Civ2's ATK / DEF / HP / DMG build in the first place.
It was GOOD, dammit.
Also, would allow for a much BETTER "Quality" (and overall promoting), what with it involving flexible HP / DMG modifiers.
I'm still awaiting those potential times when C2C units will have "body damage" or "ammo", etc.
As it is now, all units are still essentially the same, differing in hardly anything much beyond mere mathematical modifiers.
Yet there CAN be so much MORE FUN.
Sooo awaiting it, lol.

 

[Toffer90]

It's totally weird to see a Stone Thrower of a clearly higher-than-middle Quality right out the cave.

So you're saying a typical Modern man equipped with a stone is higher quality than a prehistoric man equipped with a stone?
I'd say the prehistoric man would win 9 out of 10 matches between them, therefore higher quality. Also the better the equipment the higher the potential of becoming better at using them. A stone thrower can only quality up a couple time before he reaches his full potential as a warrior with a stone, while a modern infantry unit have loads of avenues to explore in tactics and equipment familiiarity to become far superior than a green recruit with the same equipment. So it makes sense for there to be possible to get more quality up promotions the more modern the unit is.

 

[Somebody613]

So you're saying a typical Modern man equipped with a stone is higher quality than a prehistoric man equipped with a stone?
I'd say the prehistoric man would win 9 out of 10 matches between them, therefore higher quality. Also the better the equipment the higher the potential of becoming better at using them. A stone thrower can only quality up a couple time before he reaches his full potential as a warrior with a stone, while a modern infantry unit have loads of avenues to explore in tactics and equipment familiiarity to become far superior than a green recruit with the same equipment. So it makes sense for there to be possible to get more quality up promotions the more modern the unit is.

I think Quality should be split into Efficiency (which is what you're talking about) and Dangerousness (which is what I'm talking about).
The two are, in fact, opposite in application:
Efficiency means how well you're using your weapons, while Dangerousness defines how (lol) dangerous those weapons ARE.
Thus, a somewhat-low-[Efficiency] Tank is still galaxies more [Dangerous] than a highest-ever-possible-[Efficiency] Spearman.
Which is impossible to be conveyed with just ONE [Quality] parameter, especially the way it works now.
And which is why we are viewing it in entirely opposite lights as well - cause you see [Efficiency], while I see [Dangerousness].
Yeah...

 

[Thunderbrd]

So you're saying a typical Modern man equipped with a stone is higher quality than a prehistoric man equipped with a stone?
I'd say the prehistoric man would win 9 out of 10 matches between them, therefore higher quality. Also the better the equipment the higher the potential of becoming better at using them. A stone thrower can only quality up a couple time before he reaches his full potential as a warrior with a stone, while a modern infantry unit have loads of avenues to explore in tactics and equipment familiiarity to become far superior than a green recruit with the same equipment. So it makes sense for there to be possible to get more quality up promotions the more modern the unit is.

That's exactly why they have higher quality. They are more savage, closer to nature and its regular fight or flight experience, not soothed by the niceties of modern society. They are stronger fighters, naturally. Training is NOT quality but experience with battle can lead to quality-ups, and enough training can feel close enough to experience in actual combat to achieve it if there's a LOT of it. Generally Prehistoric military forces are naturally more savage and ready for a fight, but they aren't usually found in the kind of numbers humans arrange into armies later as populations expand.

There are actually approaching applications of long planned additional modifications like expanded armor and puncture, accuracy and dodge, morale rules and more. The unit planning is taking all of that into consideration for the new combat mods that have been in the works for years.

Ammo will be a matter of later equipment stuff perhaps but you can think of it now as the trigger for why throwing units try to flee battle so early - they prefer to hit and run and only want to hit as long as they can manage and still get out of there cleanly. There have been longstanding plans for ammo but it will require ... more than just this planning round will cover.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I think Quality should be split into Efficiency (which is what you're talking about) and Dangerousness (which is what I'm talking about).

You're talking the difference between quality and base strength. I wouldn't call quality efficiency either... just that natural speed of thought in battle, readiness to fight, ability to push past the fear and focus on making the kill. Quality is largely the psychological readiness for battle.

Base strength would be that core armament power you think about when you consider the difference between 'anyone' in a tank, and 'anyone' with a spear.

That set of dudes with spears just might be capable of outthinking and outfighting that 'anyone' in a tank if they are accomplished warriors with a strong psychological military readiness. They'd be more inclined to evaluate how they even COULD take down the tank with spears, perhaps jump all over it, shove the spears in the blast cannons and down gun shafts, stab at the operators from extreme close range, find ways inside to get at the meaty little beasties controlling this iron giant, and so on.