Subdued Animals in C2C discussions

[Koshling]

Honestly, nearly everything in the combat mod was considered as a result of thinking down the road of trying to deepen our animals a bit. For example, Herd Animals would generally have the Stampede ability, yes, venom from snakes, Wolves - Surround and Destroy specialists, Cats - early withdrawal and power strike (lunge), Skunks - Repel, Tortoises - Armor, Elephant - Overrun, Badgers - DigIn, etc... on and on the list goes. You can point to an animal inspiration throughout nearly the whole set of combat mod tags so far.

I buy into it from a realism perspective, but I'm not sure (in the case of wild animals) it would add anything to gameplay. Once subdued they are defend-only anyway and not really militarily useful (certainly are far more useful constructing things), so I don't see it making any real gameplay difference for the subdued versions. Since players can never control the wild versions, any abilities they get really only have the effect of making them a bit stronger and/or more annoying when hunting them - what strategy does it add?

 

[LeftBower]

I buy into it from a realism perspective, but I'm not sure (in the case of wild animals) it would add anything to gameplay. Once subdued they are defend-only anyway and not really militarily useful (certainly are far more useful constructing things), so I don't see it making any real gameplay difference for the subdued versions. Since players can never control the wild versions, any abilities they get really only have the effect of making them a bit stronger and/or more annoying when hunting them - what strategy does it add?

What stops elephant riders from getting overrun or even general military units giving access to a lot of these promotions?

 

[Koshling]

What stops elephant riders from getting overrun or even general military units giving access to a lot of these promotions?

Nothing. I'm not arguing against the promotions, I'm just saying that applying them to wild animals or subdued animals seems like wasted effort.

 

[Thunderbrd]

My wife made a similar point Koshling, so I get what you're saying. But its also given me a few rationales to share:

1) I don't think its a bad idea to give a little more depth to the hunting 'experience'. It kinda disturbs me that all animals play the same way... really takes away from the amazing diversity we have there - turns them into little more than a thin variety of numbers encapsulated among a wide array of differing arts. Perhaps its the Native American blood in me but I feel we should honor the huge diversity of evolved strategies in the natural world by displaying them applied by animals in our game.

2) By witnessing much of the Combat Mod stuff in action in the natural world, we can more quickly understand the meaning of the new effects and how human strategies at war relate to what the natural world has already determined by means of evolution. In part, this partially lends itself to the animals offering an early game tutorial for the new effects as well.

3) Differing animal types tend to show up in differing areas, and the best promotions to select to hunt them would thus vary, therefore you'd grow to have hunters that are better in some regions than others to hunt in. The price of failure would usually be the animal getting away rather than the hunter's death but the significance of hunting yields is enough to warrant a bit more challenge than we have now.

4) If we're racing through the early eras in boredom, then its because the sense of strategy at that time is mostly surrounding little more than the tech tree. Where animals are concerned its just kinda a random factor as to whether the animals you encounter are too strong or not and a little more depth to their 'abilities' can make that a bit more interesting overall.

5) The impact of realism and its ability to entice the player into deeper submersion into the game, as if the game were playing out stories throughout the game experience rather than just being a very complex strategic puzzle, cannot be underestimated.

6) Sure it may sound like we'd be inviting just a large host of 'too many concerns' for a system (hunting) that we're all currently quite comfortable with being one that takes little consideration. But add the extra considerations and it should come across as 'now we have a real game here - something we have to think about' which could be annoying at first, sure (because we're happily able to be rather lazy with hunting at the moment), but would also make the game more stimulating. We cannot forget that adversity is the underpinning reason to play this, or any, game.

7) Since many elements of the combat mod are going to be optional, if a player wants a simpler game they can have it but it gives an immediate impact of added depth (right from the first era) for those players who wish a bit more and have chosen the combat mod as a result. I could even segment out the animal edits into a completely separate option for those who'd want more intricate strategies at war but not so much in the hunting segment of the game.

 

[Yudishtira]

3) Differing animal types tend to show up in differing areas, and the best promotions to select to hunt them would thus vary, therefore you'd grow to have hunters that are better in some regions than others to hunt in. The price of failure would usually be the animal getting away rather than the hunter's death but the significance of hunting yields is enough to warrant a bit more challenge than we have now.

No one's going to enjoy the change, but it does make a lot of sense if the quarry "defender withdraws" from an average hunter on a regular basis. Not only but especially in forest where a fast animal can easily get out of sight and therefore of bowshot etc. And also especially for non-predatory animals that are more likely to flee than fight in the first place (and that's most of them!)

Does this need to be a promotion? Some animals just have this ability. Although animals that survive a hunt or kill a hunter certainly deserve XP. I actually did like the Combat 6 lions and giant spiders in FFH2.

 

[SilentConfusion]

I am new to C2C, but I really like the combat stuff Thunderbird is working on. The game takes a long time and while in my current games I haven't gotten to large scale aggression with other civs, mostly all there has been so far is hunting, and, while I really appreciate the hunting system in this game, it would be great if it required more thought. Aside from deciding on tech path and which of the many buildings I want first the opening is quite a bit of Click-End-Turn-Again. If it had a more complex and strategically interesting version of hunting, where I had to think about hunters and their actions more often I would enjoy the early game a lot more. Right now hunting is mostly click to kill and maybe subdue animal and build another hunter when one is killed by Neanderthals.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I am new to C2C, ... opening is quite a bit of Click-End-Turn-Again....

Have you found the game option that automatically ends turns where there are no decisions needed? It gets rid of that Click-End-Turn-Again. Press esc to interrupt.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Have you found the game option that automatically ends turns where there are no decisions needed? It gets rid of that Click-End-Turn-Again. Press esc to interrupt.

I use that option sometimes. "Click-End-Turn-Again" is more of a feeling that I get when I feel a part of the game is less interesting rather than the repetitive stress of actually pressing the end turn button. If I'm wanting to zoom through an era, then I'm not interested in what I'm doing.

I see the problem as this: The real early game in C2C is less interesting than later on.

Possible Solutions:

• Allow it to go faster by improving automation. I have seen much work in worker and hunter automation improvement. This is encouraging even if you prefer to move pieces manually for a long time. I usually only use automation once I get to the point of being uninterested in that aspect of the game, such as workers late game because to me it gets boring (at least in normal Civ IV; I haven't gotten to late game C2C).
• Add interesting game features to the early game to make the things that are happening in this period more interesting and thus it will not matter to the player if it takes a while. I think Thunderbird's ideas will make hunting and hunter promotion more of a strategically interesting activity and therefore will make early games more interesting to me.

Most of all I like the idea of options for Enhanced Hunting Combat and Enhanced Battle combat separately. That way both solutions above would be viable. People who'd rather skip to later game can automate hunting and zoom to what, for them, are more interesting eras. And people who'd rather debate over each hunter move, like me, would have the option of a more interesting early game.

 

[Raven Destroyer]

usually i get infrastructure up with manual workers and just let them run around upgrading roads

 

[rightfuture]

@Hydro

Did you see this tool to convert images into 3d models?
It's for the ipad but looks very promising.

Autodesk 123D Catch For iPad Lets You Convert Images Into 3D Models
http://www.addictivetips.com/ios/au...-ipad-lets-you-convert-images-into-3d-models/

 

[Hydromancerx]

Interesting. Found a video about it.


Link to video.

Not sure how useful it would be. Considering you either need a Physical 3D model or lots of drawing. And I would think just making it in 3DS would be easier. Plus I do not own an iPad. And just because they can make a 3D model doesn't mean its in a format I can convert for civ4.

 

[rightfuture]

Thanks Hydro for giving feedback, always on the lookout for potentially useful things.
Maybe someone is inspired to do some 3d translations for us.

Here's an interesting article about potentially restoring extinct species.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews&pid=6444

 

[LumenAngel]

I buy into it from a realism perspective, but I'm not sure (in the case of wild animals) it would add anything to gameplay. Once subdued they are defend-only anyway and not really militarily useful (certainly are far more useful constructing things), so I don't see it making any real gameplay difference for the subdued versions. Since players can never control the wild versions, any abilities they get really only have the effect of making them a bit stronger and/or more annoying when hunting them - what strategy does it add?

Add venom to snake and a bigger chance to withdraw will make them quite unique (and dangerous in a special way).
Add a better vision to some birds (or a prom for this) and I will use them more to see neutral lands (just put them on mountain, because non-birds wont be able to attack them for a while)
Add the possibility to cut tree to Subdued Beavers and it will be fun

But mainly... Give them Hidden nationality and it can be really fun to use a subdued Elephant to destroy a farm (Trample) or a subdued gorilla to provoke havoc in an hamlet (not destroy it, but reduce bonus for X turns in it, just like a battle effect)

yes, it need some AI...

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

@AIAndy elsewhere you were talking about outcomes on combat classes. I was thinking the captives mod, but if this idea includes secondary classes as well I can see good use for it in the subdued animals section. An animal size class would make the food and hammers returned from a kill or butchering more consistent for example.

 

[AIAndy]

@AIAndy elsewhere you were talking about outcomes on combat classes. I was thinking the captives mod, but if this idea includes secondary classes as well I can see good use for it in the subdued animals section. An animal size class would make the food and hammers returned from a kill or butchering more consistent for example.

I meant any combat class including secondary ones. So if it is going to be used, I am going to add it.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I meant any combat class including secondary ones. So if it is going to be used, I am going to add it.

Oh yea, it will make my life soooooo much easier. I had forgotten about the secondary ones

 

[AIAndy]

Oh yea, it will make my life soooooo much easier. I had forgotten about the secondary ones

I'll add it after the freeze.

 

[AIAndy]

The code is written and will be pushed to the SVN after the release.
One question though: What should happen if there are kill outcomes defined on more than one combat type or the unit type of a unit.
These things could happen:

• Only one is used with the one on the unit type taking precedence
• All are executed independently of each other
• The lists are merged into one kill outcome list so only one outcome with the relative chances of all defined outcomes used

Currently it executes them all independent of each other so you can get more than one outcome result (it was the easiest to implement).
But I guess merging the lists would make it easier to keep the subdued outcome on the unit type while the food outcome is from a combat type.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Have you just done kill outcomes or all outcomes?

I would assume that anything on the individual unit over rides the same "type" of outcome on unit type.

I expect different types of outcomes to be on different unit types.

For example the unit that is subdued would be on the unit. The amount of and from kill or butchered would be based on the unit type associated with size. The "combat entertainment value" would have to be unit or unit group eg you get horse fights but not llama fights and you can probably get any predator to fight. Study outcomes I would like to change in a big way so that early on you get more from native animals than later with exotic animals giving a larger return.

Is this confusion even possible?

Currently it executes them all independent of each other so you can get more than one outcome result (it was the easiest to implement).
But I guess merging the lists would make it easier to keep the subdued outcome on the unit type while the food outcome is from a combat type.

So yes.

 

[AIAndy]

Have you just done kill outcomes or all outcomes?

All. For outcome missions it is clear. With the same mission ID defined on both unit type and unit combat types, the unit type takes precedence.

I would assume that anything on the individual unit over rides the same "type" of outcome on unit type.

I expect different types of outcomes to be on different unit types.

For example the unit that is subdued would be on the unit. The amount of and from kill or butchered would be based on the unit type associated with size. The "combat entertainment value" would have to be unit or unit group eg you get horse fights but not llama fights and you can probably get any predator to fight. Study outcomes I would like to change in a big way so that early on you get more from native animals than later with exotic animals giving a larger return.

Is this confusion even possible?

Ok, then this is what I will do:
If there are kill outcomes on both the unit type and combat types, it will merge them temporarily but only add one of each outcome type so an outcome type on the unit type will override the same outcome type on a unit combat type.