Some ideas I got from MoM. Modders, PLEASE read!

I'm happy to see that I actually triggered some in-depth discussion, even if it won't lead to fast results.
Well, I can only hope to EVENTUALLY see both volumetric resources AND varied buyable equipments being implemented in C2C.
Good luck with your wonderful mod, guys! :D
 
I figured the property system would eventually be used for that purpose, yes.

As for paying for equipment promos with it, have you read the extensive coding that has been done so far for equipments? I'm thinking that it would become necessary to implement any expenses on equipments through the pathways already defined there so I'm not sure how outcome missions would help us in this regard.

Currently, the majority of the equipment system is automatic in terms of ensuring that units are given the best they have local access to. Cities gain access to equipment promos it may offer and if its the best the unit can get of that 'type' then the unit will automatically pick it up from the city that provides its access. Not entirely unlike the way picking up the Bamboo Armor promo works now, just more advanced... if the unit is wearing bamboo armor and a better armor in the same class comes up for grabs in the city they are in, that new better armor will automatically then replace the Bamboo Armor.

It is also assumed that any revenues derived from taxation of sales on new equipments is equally compensated by any military needs for those equipments.

The only decisions that players must make with the equipment system is if they want their units to switch between equally useful equipments that fill the same role (such as between chain mail and bamboo armor OR flaming arrows vs flight arrows vs sheaf arrows vs poisoned arrows.) And even the choice to make those changes costs nothing to the player.

If we wanted to implement a cost involved, it would have to mirror more of the upgrade mechanisms in charging its fees and the AI work would be far more intensive. But if we make resources volumetric, it would at least have to cost values in terms of resources, if not gold (at which point we may as well include gold costs as the AI work would be no worse at that time.)
You are misunderstanding me. I am not saying we should or that it would be the right thing to do, just that if someone wanted to have a mirror of the MoM system, he could do so right now by pure XML.

I must have missed this one, i'll have to look for it, but the Rise of Erebus is alot of python, i informed TB about that in a post before. Or i might have looked at it wrong?
There are several modmod branches of FfH2 and the Wildmana/MoM branch by Sephi uses a considerable amount of DLL modding.
That does not mean that everything is implemented in the DLL, just that several of the additional things are (which btw also includes quite some AI work).
 
Volumetric resources is something we've tossed around a bit and I strongly feel we should eventually implement but a suitable proposal has never been made. There's a modder on the site in the main threads that was attempting something along those lines and we do have access to his source code and may seek to see if there's anything there we can use. But we also have some other ideas as to how it may be done properly. So its an 'eventual' probability that something like it will be in the game just no time in the near future.

Well I think it would go along with the whole rations/fuel idea. I know they are separate but they seem like they could be made in synergy if such a thing was added to the mod.
 
Well I think it would go along with the whole rations/fuel idea. I know they are separate but they seem like they could be made in synergy if such a thing was added to the mod.

Definitely! I really can see having to guard transport tankers of fuel you're desperate to get to your forces stuck in the field unable to move due to having run dry, as happened to Rommel in WWII since we were able to intercept all the fuel tankers trying to get fuel to him across the Mediterranean to North Africa. Made him a sitting duck to Patton's forces who were thus able to eliminate rather easily what would've otherwise been an extraordinarily formidable foe.
 
Definitely! I really can see having to guard transport tankers of fuel you're desperate to get to your forces stuck in the field unable to move due to having run dry, as happened to Rommel in WWII since we were able to intercept all the fuel tankers trying to get fuel to him across the Mediterranean to North Africa. Made him a sitting duck to Patton's forces who were thus able to eliminate rather easily what would've otherwise been an extraordinarily formidable foe.

Is that what they teach you? (FYI) Rommel was defeated (besieged in Tunisia) before there were any Americans in the entire war with Germany, let alone in North Africa. Patton wasn't even on the boat yet. And I would be most surprised if US involvement in the fuel blockade - if any - was more than financial - given the complete lack of US forces in the Mediterranean until later.
 
History channel stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some propaganda based statements made on any media of such a nature. The point remains that it was missing out on oil that caused his defeat.
 
Yeah.
And just on a side-note, one of the reasons for Rommels rapid advance in the first place was the american ambassador/consul in egypt, whose reports home were dechiffred, enableing the germans to estimate the movements and strengths of british troops in egypt for quite some time...

But I also think that there were american supplies coming in to the british in egypt prior to the americans landing in north africa....
 
Rommel was defeated for multiple reasons. Oil being one of them; the reason for the oil problem was that his general supply lines grew too far extended (it wasn't just oil he was suffering a shortage of), were open to naval raids (from Malta) and air raids. The other major problem was simply a lack of equipment/replacements. Just look at the number of tanks, men and supplemental field guns each side had at El Alamein, and also realize that by then Montgomery had a decent number of Shermans which were as good as the Panzer III and early Panzer IV models that Rommel had.
 
History channel stuff.

Seriously what happened to the History Channel. I remember back when I was in school and they would show old VHS or DVDs of Educational History Channel videos. Then somewhere in the 2000's it went from history to the "Conspiracy Channel" and more recently the "Reality Show Channel". I mean what the heck?


Link to video.
 
Is that what they teach you? (FYI) Rommel was defeated (besieged in Tunisia) before there were any Americans in the entire war with Germany, let alone in North Africa. Patton wasn't even on the boat yet. And I would be most surprised if US involvement in the fuel blockade - if any - was more than financial - given the complete lack of US forces in the Mediterranean until later.

Your history is apparently no better.

The US was certainly in North Africa. The 2nd Corps commanded by Major General Lloyd Fredendall was in Tunisia and was a major element in the Battle of Kasserine Pass. They performed rather poorly, Rommel saying that they made many mistakes typical of inexperienced soldiers and leaders (but also stated that he was unable to really take advantage of this because of lack of support and what amounted to overly specific orders from above from those who failed to understand what he wanted to accomplish in that particular battle - specifically, he wanted to seize the American supplies but the Italian High Command changed the plan to something completely different which denied him the chance to take the supply depot). Ultimately, the dug in US troops which had been forced to withdraw with heavy casualties earlier, and some US reinforcements (including a bunch of artillery that had been ordered to go elsewhere by the British commander, but that order was countermanded by another American general) with a lot of British support (including some artillery and a bunch of infantry, the majority of the infantry in the front lines) managed to halt Rommels advance, pinning his forces down largely due to the mass of artillery fire which was intense enough that he could not even pull back until nightfall.

The dismal performance of the US 2nd Corps in that battle is what lead to Major General Fredendall being replaced by Major General Patton. Several other officers were reassigned as well. It also lead to many changed in US tactics and doctrine, including freeing up the commanders at the location to do more without asking permission from higher up (Patton became well know for ignoring orders, mostly those that were based on situations that no longer existed).

Patton was also already in North Africa at that time. This engagement of US forces with Rommel's forces was in Februrary of 1943. Patton had arrived in Morocco on November 8, 1942, commanding the Western Task Force. They captured Cassablanca from the Vichy French in 3 days and Patton negotiated an armistice withe the French commander. He took command of the 2nd Corps on March 6, 1943 and instituted many changes. On March 17th some of those US forces took Gafsa. By that time Rommel was already back in Germany.

So the US forces under Patton never fought the Axis forces under Rommel (just under the Italian General who replaced him), although the corps he was put in command of had fought Rommel once.

But yes, the US millitary and Patton were in North Africa before the final defeat of "Rommels forces". But other than that one battle he was not really in command of them by the time the US forces fought them - the Italians took over the force since by that time it consisted of 3 Italian corps and only 1 German corp, the actual appointment of the Italian general was a couple of weeks before this battle but Rommel lead a major force in the battle. Then less than a month later Rommel went back to Germany to try to explain things to Hitler, who never understood what he was trying to tell him, and Rommel never went back to Africa. Two months later, in May, that Axis force in North Africa was finally defeated (by that time it was certainly not Rommel being defeated as he was not in command of it and had not been there at all for a couple of months).
 
Your history is apparently no better.

The US was certainly in North Africa. The 2nd Corps commanded by Major General Lloyd Fredendall was in Tunisia and was a major element in the Battle of Kasserine Pass. They performed rather poorly, Rommel saying that they made many mistakes typical of inexperienced soldiers and leaders (but also stated that he was unable to really take advantage of this because of lack of support and what amounted to overly specific orders from above from those who failed to understand what he wanted to accomplish in that particular battle - specifically, he wanted to seize the American supplies but the Italian High Command changed the plan to something completely different which denied him the chance to take the supply depot). Ultimately, the dug in US troops which had been forced to withdraw with heavy casualties earlier, and some US reinforcements (including a bunch of artillery that had been ordered to go elsewhere by the British commander, but that order was countermanded by another American general) with a lot of British support (including some artillery and a bunch of infantry, the majority of the infantry in the front lines) managed to halt Rommels advance, pinning his forces down largely due to the mass of artillery fire which was intense enough that he could not even pull back until nightfall.

The dismal performance of the US 2nd Corps in that battle is what lead to Major General Fredendall being replaced by Major General Patton. Several other officers were reassigned as well. It also lead to many changed in US tactics and doctrine, including freeing up the commanders at the location to do more without asking permission from higher up (Patton became well know for ignoring orders, mostly those that were based on situations that no longer existed).

Patton was also already in North Africa at that time. This engagement of US forces with Rommel's forces was in Februrary of 1943. Patton had arrived in Morocco on November 8, 1942, commanding the Western Task Force. They captured Cassablanca from the Vichy French in 3 days and Patton negotiated an armistice withe the French commander. He took command of the 2nd Corps on March 6, 1943 and instituted many changes. On March 17th some of those US forces took Gafsa. By that time Rommel was already back in Germany.

So the US forces under Patton never fought the Axis forces under Rommel (just under the Italian General who replaced him), although the corps he was put in command of had fought Rommel once.

But yes, the US millitary and Patton were in North Africa before the final defeat of "Rommels forces". But other than that one battle he was not really in command of them by the time the US forces fought them - the Italians took over the force since by that time it consisted of 3 Italian corps and only 1 German corp, the actual appointment of the Italian general was a couple of weeks before this battle but Rommel lead a major force in the battle. Then less than a month later Rommel went back to Germany to try to explain things to Hitler, who never understood what he was trying to tell him, and Rommel never went back to Africa. Two months later, in May, that Axis force in North Africa was finally defeated (by that time it was certainly not Rommel being defeated as he was not in command of it and had not been there at all for a couple of months).

That was awesome. I can see how I may have gotten a Patton enamored abridged version of the tale as it was delivered in the context of the value of oil in war. I can also see how I may have fuzzied some of the details in my head. But I'm not too far off there then. Now that I recall... I think they did mention Rommel wasn't present at the time his forces were fully defeated.

At this point I stand quite happily corrected as that was a truly amazing display of historical knowledge right there.
 
At this point I stand quite happily corrected as that was a truly amazing display of historical knowledge right there.

Not that amazing. I had to look up the name of the general Patton replaced, the name of the battle, even that it was the US's II Corps (I can never remember which was where - in fact calling it the "2nd Corps" as I did instead of "II Corps" is technically incorrect when talking about them for any time period after somewhere around WW-I), details of that battle, and of course the exact dates...

All I really remembered was the general outline: that the US became involved in actual fighting in North Africa a few month before Rommel left, the initial contact did not go well for the US forces, that Patton never actually was in a battle against forces led by Rommel as he was not put in charge in that area until shortly after Rommel was gone, and that it was not long after Rommel left that they lost control of the last pieces of North Africa. Enough to know the claim that the US was not involved and Patton wasn't even over there yet was not correct and look it up to get the details.
 
Yeah, a little wikipedia can go a long ways. I often forget to reference it to make sure I know what I'm talking about. :scan:

If there was no wikipedia nearly all my buildings would have no pedia text. It is one of the best resources for a project like C2C that spans all of human history. I am constantly accessing it for information about anything and everything.

It should be a wonder in the game.
 
Back
Top Bottom