1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Subdued Animals in C2C discussions

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by Dancing Hoskuld, Sep 12, 2011.

  1. mart777

    mart777 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    140
    Gender:
    Male
    In vanila, they stated, that scouts get better results from tribal villages. Is this no longer the case for C2C?
    I guess, this would be completely new functionality? Something no one tried to mod before.
    Sometimes I send animals alone to cultural borders, and the best cases are, for example, when a mammoth is in the group. Even subdued is very strong.
    Yes, that would force a player to always escort such animals.

    The problem with using subdued birds as "air reconnaissance" would remain though? Before falconry, that is quite an exploit. And later also, but smaller (e.g. a duck-falcon)
     
  2. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,288
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    A subdued animal can only go where one of your units has been before. So for a subdued animal to take a goody hut your other unit would've had to be there 1st and should've already taken the hut. Unless someone has taken this movement restriction off of subdued animals over the last 6 months.

    JosEPh
     
  3. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,262
    Location:
    Norway
    It is still the case, Scouts cannot meet barbarians (the villagers are hostile) in a goody hut while every other units can. That is all that the "better result from goody hut" mean. The game decides what a goody hut gives before you take it (this has to do with the current random seed number which is changed every time it is used to determine a game outcome; so a battle would for example change this number [a number of times even])

    If the current seed number would give "the villagers are hostile" for a regular unit it would give something else for a scout because the outcome would be denied and the game would have to choose the outcome again with a new random seed number.
     
  4. Dancing Hoskuld

    Dancing Hoskuld Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,544
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    As he mentioned the animal would not be revealing any new plots when it entered the village so it can move there fine. Subdued animals can only move to plots if they will not reveal unknown areas of the map. No change has been made.
     
  5. Faustmouse

    Faustmouse Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    3,523
    if you have your hunter on a coastal tile they can usually see pretty far. Any subdued bird cut then take a goody island; this would also be true if a hunter was on a flat area or on a hill; you could also walk around the goody hut and then grab it with your subdued animal (but why would this been an exploid?)

    Toffer is also right: Scout units get better results ON AVERAGE. The chances for better results are higher for them while those for worse results are lowered or completely removed.

    And I've never seen the AI sending animals without escort anywhere, so there is no need to teach it that. It's only the player that exploids it ;)
     
  6. mart777

    mart777 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    140
    Gender:
    Male
    In some cases, what we - human players, can do, is something either "not really intended" or "against reasonable use." I call it: exploit, as something "to use selfishly for one's own ends."
    It is very difficult to avoid some outcomes of in-game/programmed workings, that can be used like this. My point is to possibly think of some solution, that may be there, though sometimes with too much effort needed to do, I guess.

    Using subdued birds as "air reconnaissance" is somewhat bigger in my opinion. I agree, these animals cannot explore, but let's say, I hunt on already explored terrain. My chaser/tracker is vulnerable both to barbarian club-men, neanderthal warriors(barbarian) or bears/grizzly, mammoth and other such very strong ones. By using a subdued bird, that can fly 3 tiles or some 4 tiles, I can see the area where I plan to go with chaser/tracker, that effectively removes fog-of-war, and I do not risk that chaser/tracker. That is like using falconry, or in other words, trained birds. And that can be used from turn 0.

    Subdued animals checking tribal villages is smaller exploit, and this could just stay. I guess, not very often that would happen. But to consider it, this is like having for that particular case an additional explorer unit. For example, I enter with scout a hill and my bird follows. I can see 2 tribal villages one to south, another to north, let's say. Now, next turn, the south village is on flat terrain, so bird can go there and check it (no exploration of new tiles: flat near that hill). While the scout can go north checking the other village.
    A player risks an animal, so it is not without a price. But anyway, this is how it goes.
     
  7. Toffer90

    Toffer90 C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,262
    Location:
    Norway
    Giving subdued animals of all kind only 1 movement point would mostly remove such scenarios.
     
  8. Rwn

    Rwn King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    713
    That's what I did in Dangerous Animals FWIW.
     
  9. Dancing Hoskuld

    Dancing Hoskuld Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,544
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    In theory I would not be against such an idea but it falls short in some ways. They should be able to move up to as fast as the unit that captured them.

    Subdued animals = some humans with some young or small number (one) of adults of the animal. They should only be used to
    • build herds in cities
    • place resources on the map (some already do this with the right tech)
    • construct buildings in cities
    Which of these is chosen first would depend on the trait of the leader.

    Tamed animals are units of the animal with a human handler. They are what is intended for combat and recon (fog of war) style jobs.
     
  10. mart777

    mart777 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    140
    Gender:
    Male
    How about something like this:
    - subdued animals have movement 0 outside cultural borders. Can this be done? Does that require an extensive additions to the game code?
    - Player (or AI) has the following actions/orders for the unit outside borders:
    -- place resources on the map
    -- teleport to the closest city
    And the teleport would be available only to some distance from cultural borders, or city.
    -- kill the animal for food and production, that is like a fight kill (lower yield). For example, if player hunted more far away, than he/she can teleport, that may be the only option available, apart from just having the animal remain there.

    This would force players/AI to hunt closer to the borders. Otherwise they resign from benefits of subdued animals.


    So teleporting only from some limited distance would help.

    Other ways of slowing down exploration?
    If you think about it, even prehistoric wanderers could travel large distances. If they hunted well. However, they maybe did not make good maps of the exploration areas. We playing the game can just see it and have tiles visible from now on. Difficult problem to solve.

    What could be done?
    A drastic solution could be: to limit also distance of a given unit that it can travel from cultural borders. This will though complicate turn processing, I guess.
     
  11. Dancing Hoskuld

    Dancing Hoskuld Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,544
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    None of these can be done at the moment. They would require some C++ or Python coding to implement the new XML tags and adjust the AI behaviour to handle them.

    The current mechanic slows down exploration enough IMO without affecting the fun of play. We did discuss limiting how far a unit can move from the cultural borders. Platyping has a Python mod for just this and I have adapted it for C2C but never released it as I could not get the tech tree part working. The main problem with using it beyond the Ancient Era would be the slow down in turn times it may create.
     
  12. GT Ranma

    GT Ranma Slowest of the Slow

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    194
    Location:
    US of A
    Did you program the AI to 'escort' the newly minted animals too, or not?

    If not, this seems to me to be giving the pc's a huge and unfair advantage as the npcs will never be able to get any back to their cities to create myths or unique animal structures anymore. . .

    P.S. And this does not slow my 'exploration' down one bit u..u I just have military units explore now, and hunters doing the hunting. Once they get a stack of 10 or 20, i send a military unit out there to 'escort' them back home. . .
     
  13. Dancing Hoskuld

    Dancing Hoskuld Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,544
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    I did not need to, it was done when we introduced subdued animals. IE the AI has has always known what to do with captured animals. We added the teleport option which some how became the default.

    Since I don't bother with military units until Tribalism it works fine for me.
     
  14. Noriad2

    Noriad2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,153
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a missed opportunity. It is possible to take out 1-2 neighbouring civs before tribalism with Spiked Clubman rushes. If you start attacking later, you'll suffer from rapidly increasing enemy city defense bonuses which leads to more ram units needed and effective stalemates, especially if you don't have obsidian or elephants for better attack units.

    Early in the game, you can take out most enemy cities with a dozen spiked clubmen. Once enemy defenses have shot up to 180% or more you may need to suicide at least 30 or so battering rams into a city before you are even allowed to attack with other units. That, or wait even longer until siege technology becomes available (which makes attacking easier again)
     
  15. Taxman66

    Taxman66 King

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Columbia, Maryland USA
    I've wiped out neighborhing Civs with horsemen and Tengri. It's easy to get the builings to give them combat III or Flank III along with the free bonuses. Add on that fact that horsemen have a 6 base strength and a movement of 2 and you can even crush stone spearmen in the woods.

    I've made a long (and documented supported) argument why horsemen should not exist (I'd personally give that tech the ability to allow merchants and settlers their 2nd movement point); but am not in charge. Either way the unit is far too strong (I mean why even build early chariots?).
     
  16. Dancing Hoskuld

    Dancing Hoskuld Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,544
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    I too have argued that horsemen should not come until long after chariots, as is historically correct, but people wont believe that humans never thought to ride animals until later. I blame Hollywood:mischief::D
     
  17. GT Ranma

    GT Ranma Slowest of the Slow

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    194
    Location:
    US of A
    Ic. Well that is good.

    Only one ... caveat. It does add to the 'micromanaging' of this game a bit. My roommate tried to play the mod, and he pitched a fit. I think having to 'escort' defenseless units back to base after capturing them was the 'last straw' so to speak.

    I don't mind it. But he hated the idea. *sigh* And now I get to hear him go on about how C2C is nothing but an exercise in micro-managing... -..-

    ...

    Me? Myself? And I? I always have Raging Barbarians on, and Barbarian Cities, and Barbarian Generals. Otherwise the prehistoric era is just ... boring -..- Even with them on, 80-90% of the turns I just hit 'Next Turn' and do nothing... (at least with animals not teleporting to your cities, it gives me something to do)
     
  18. Faustmouse

    Faustmouse Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    3,523
    Well, since you are pretty much in charge of the mod now and it fixes both a gameplay and a realism issue... :mischief:
     
  19. Dancing Hoskuld

    Dancing Hoskuld Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,544
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    They do start to teleport at Sedentary Lifestyle. If I have enough arguments for it I may move it back to Tribalism.

    C2C is about micro management so tell your friend to stop complaining and play a mod that has a different focus.:mischief:

    Do you have the option "Automatically end turns when there is no decisions to be made" on? Reduces the amount of hitting "Next Turn". You can always pres Esc to stop the next end turn.
     
  20. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28,203
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    The fundamental argument is this:
    Person A: "There is no documented evidence showing men rode horses before they built chariots and hitched them up. Therefore, they must not have."

    Person B: "There is no documented evidence that shows men did not ride horses before they built chariots and hitched them up. There also is no documented evidence that shows that they didn't. Therefore they must have because there naturally wouldn't be anything that would remain behind as evidence of this sort of bareback riding behavior and obviously it makes more sense to try to ride a horse than build something to make them useful to us."

    Person A: "Surely early man was too timid to ride a horse."

    Person B: "What makes you think that they would be timid?"

    Person A: "Because they feared nature."

    Person B: "Why would they have feared nature if they were a part of it? Would it not have taken massive everyday bravery to simply survive?"

    Person A: "There's a difference between doing what you have to and guessing that something might be beneficial and taking a massive risk on something you don't think you NEED to do."

    Person B: "Doesn't the benefits of horseback riding seem absolutely obvious enough to have at least had some brave souls dedicate themselves to the effort?"

    Person A: "No"

    Person B: "So one person lacks imagination and that means everyone would? How the hell did we ever evolve into what we were today if we weren't at least a little foolhardy and took some chances on things we thought might give us an edge?"

    Person A: "Sorry... just don't see it. Early man had to have been a wimp or he wouldn't have survived. How could we have made it this far without caution?"

    Person B: "As we observe modern man, would you say that at the core of what we are that we are 'cautious' by nature? I don't think thousands of years has taught us to be risk takers - we would've not emerged from prehistory at all if we weren't."

    Person A: "Ok, point taken but there's no evidence that man ever rode horses before they built chariots."

    Rinse and Repeat.


    Ok, a little deeper. Let's take a look at the 'evidence' that we did not use horses before chariots.

    1) There is no wear on the teeth of the equine skeletons that date before the chariot. This means we did not use a bit and bridle and therefore could not have ridden and wielded a weapon at the same time.

    Refute: So we didn't invent the bit and bridle before the chariot. Fair enough. But don't horses have manes and are adeptly ridden without reigns by riders with a distinct relationship to the animal? Wasn't early man more in touch with animals than we are today much as native and indigenous people are? Wouldn't that same attitude of being part of nature rather than apart from it have led the earliest riders into a relationship based riding experience between the mount and rider? Would not this 'relationship' rather than master and beast style riding have enabled the far more physically adept early man to do what we would consider ourselves impossible today?

    2) There is no way we could have forced the animal into danger (combat) without having the control that the reigns would provide.

    Refute: Again, relationship. Horses are actually pretty intelligent and emotional creatures. Fear is not their only emotion. It isn't the only motivator for us. Science has recently objectively proven that dogs do actually care about their masters, not just what their masters can do for them. Why would it be any different for any other mammal? The horse could be inspired to support the will of their companion human out of emotional bonds quite easily I believe, and throughout history, it is that very bond of companionship that has enabled even humans to psychologically dispute their natural urge to flee from battle. I'm sure any practiced rider will be able to go into much more detail on this, relating from their own experiences what their mount is willing to do, and endure, when there is a true bond of caring between them. So point #2 must truly stem from a modern viewpoint that animals are purely basal and incapable of the complexity of feelings that humans posses.

    3) We have not found equine skeletons on the fields of early battles where we found human skeletons.

    Refute: Most indigenous people have a deep respect for what they kill and preach that one should use as much of the kill as you can, all of it if you're capable. While dead humans may have been treated much differently, the sense of responsibility towards the fallen equines may well have inspired a behavior to remove the dead from the field. Besides that, the horse was, as has been pointed out, quite an acceptable food source. Why would the victors not take part in the bounty of the spoils? Again... another cause to remove the animals from the battlefield.

    4) There is no written record of horses being used in battle.

    Refute: We're talking about a place in history before the written word. Writing came after the chariot was invented so... of course there wouldn't be.

    5) There is no artistic record of horses being used in battle.

    Refute: It very likely was quite uncommon. Horses were probably too valuable to use in this manner very often. Early man probably knew HOW to take them to battle but were reluctant to for the same bonded reasons that the horse would be willing to if they did go to war.

    However, I think we can wager that horses WERE used in numerous conflicts. Scouting, patrolling, hunting. That it was not only possible, but likely due to the obvious benefits riding on horseback would provide - even if the horse were more often simply used to get from point a to point b faster and with less effort on behalf of the rider. It would not, however, have been until civilized man's idea that we are here to conquer the natural world and bend it to our will as opposed to the indigenous attitude that we are simply a part of nature, that we would begin to see truly militaristic concepts emerging that would add the horse as a solid part of the battlefield.

    The Chariot rapidly emerged as a part of this blossoming into what we call civilization. The Sumerians were clever. We have a lot more mysteries to resolve there about how they raced through so many technological discoveries practically overnight. And maybe THEY didn't use the horse in warfare until this sudden emergence of civilization because the horse was far too valuable to risk for that in the fertile crescent. Particularly after they began using the help of the horse in farm labors. But does that mean that those tribes that existed without written record for thousands of years before and after this point in other places of the world where horses also existed would not?

    Let's also make another counterpoint here and this is that WARFARE itself is rarely depicted in early art and yet we find much more evidence for it throughout the prehistoric record.
     

Share This Page