Ukrainian Conflict - New scenario project - Dev Thread

[Sedna]

that's the little trick :
If you have 90 units, barbarian leader takes the 91th slot. 115 units, 116th slot, etc with ultimately 189 units + the 190th slot for barbarian leader.
One should notice the barbarian leader caracteristics are the diplomat's slot unit's (just left of spy slot).


yes.


the unit on this slot is known to require to choose fundamentalism governement to be build.


Only the engineer (working lands twice as fast), as far as I know.


This slot shall trigger a pop-up when the unit becomes avaible. Could be used as a feature, avoided, or be treated with no care.


The hard code part of this unit is diplomatic. A tribe owning such unit act arrogant


a unit with diplomat role on this slot has more powers than other diplomats.


a unit with trade role on this slot grant more bonuses than other trading units.


Like the Musketeers, the knight slot is a dangerous slot for the ability to produce some other units. More details in the link in the end.


That should be such a reminder indeed, if I wrote it correctly .

Informations are gathered by great contributors there :
Musketeer&Knight Slot
Unit Slots
Barbarian Paper

Ok so long story short (and thanks to the other links explaining special units and barbarians)
- barbarian leader has diplomat features and it's maybe best to keep the diplomat left of the spy too.
- spy should be left where it is if you want to keep the special spy mechanics like targetting, poisonning, or planting nuclear device and to avoid some options (like the nuclear device) you can edit the text choices. And some lua can be used to give spy abilities to other units

I could see myself rename diplomat "spy" and spy "special forces" especially if a sky can have more than 0 in attack? It could make its way to a city through a few units and then sabotage? Is it possible to make a spy paratrooper too?

- engineer should be left where it is as it is the only place a settler can get the x2 speed to build. Same for the caravan vs trucks dynamics in trading
- paratroop is only a pop up which you can disable anyways
- the nuke slot is not for nuke per say but for the diplomatic behavior. So you could create something else (say, any extremely future tech) and this unit would be used for diplomatic arrogance, and to code a nuke behaviour is ot give it 99 @tootall_2012. If I want the AI to possibly completely mess up alliances if its what the player wants, it's best not to give this unit to any faction for ex? (hypothetically)
- musketeer and knight have a special "makes all units with a low defense obsolete" and "same double movement obsolete" in the rows before. I read a good way to get rid of this feature is to make some special units there, like flying AWACS could be put there or something so that this mechanics doesn't happen?

An alternative mentionned way in your links is to ignore them for players so they would only be barbarians (or you loose 2 slots) or make them fly and 0/0 and pretend they are buildings.

As for barbarians overall
- if i want them to have improving units I have to be very careful which ones they are, where they are placed, and keeping the original research as a prerequisite for their units choices. Another way is to give the tech to the neutral countries for ex, and then they will pop the final group of units only (with no piracy).

As for computers, it's important that in one type of unit (attack, defense, air superiority etc) the higher stats is the only thing that matters for the AI to build them. It disregards other stats like hit points or power, so it's best if they are divided in groups and in each group they go up and up in stats.

@techumseh I liked that last link. A lot of things I didn't know in there. There's two approaches I see
- consider giving all tech that have an impact to all factions right from the beginning so the starting point is a relatively controlled stable "modern" world where all effects are unlocked, and I control what is not yet available, OR
- using them carefully, trying to keep an order between them that doesn't create issues, and still provides a progress for the factions. For ex, using "mysticism" as a way for the equivalent of temple to make happy 2 citizens instead of 1 (say, I don't know, a basic need for people inside a war zone could be access to potable water, and resinstallation of hot water lines would be the "mysticism" of this? Polytheism would be a way to control what units you receive but also which ones barbarians now build. Also, it means I can plan first the units barbarians would use, since they "should" use mercenary types of units (makes more sense during a local uprising) and then start laying out the genberic milita/mercenary roster on the barbarian chosen units. Construction (its equivalent in the scenario) would allow ability to build "better trenches", stuff like that.

 

[Dadais]

I could see myself rename diplomat "spy" and spy "special forces" especially if a sky can have more than 0 in attack

Be it with an att of 0 or more, a unit with the diplomat role can't attack.
You may want such an unit to have diplomat role in your city (for protection) and next to ennemies' cities (for operations) during its owner's turn and attack or defend role otherwise, thus play with lua for that ?

 

[civ2units]

Hello @Sedna and also welcome from me too.

It's always good to see new members who have fun designing scenarios for ToT.
I think designing a scenario from a currently ongoing conflict will be for sure a challenge though.

Anyway, I wish you good luck with your scenario and looking forward to it.

 

[techumseh]

One erroneous point: "engineer should be left where it is as it is the only place a settler can get the x2 speed to build."

Engineering abilities are actually controlled by flag 5, G) General flags, in the Advanced Unit fields of the Rules Txt. This is mislabeled in the Original Game Rules, but correctly labeled elsewhere. The line for the engineer unit (2nd line) gives engineer abilities when marked with a 0, unlike all the rest. Marked with a 1, it acts like a normal settler unit.

; G) General flags
; 00000001 invisible except during combat: 1 - invisible
; 00000010 non-disbandable (human players only): 1 - cannot disband
; 00000100 0-range-air-unit damage override: 1 - override damage
; 00001000 barbarian units can't be bought off: 1 - can't buy off
; 00010000 unit may enter impassable terrain: 1 - may enter
; 00100000 unit acquires engineering abilities: 1 - engineer
; 01000000 barbarian unit will not expire: 1 - no expire
; 10000000 override .SPR file for this unit: 1 - don't use .SPR

 

[Sedna]

Be it with an att of 0 or more, a unit with the diplomat role can't attack.
You may want such an unit to have diplomat role in your city (for protection) and next to ennemies' cities (for operations) during its owner's turn and attack or defend role otherwise, thus play with lua for that ?

I found out about it today in the "tips" area of that website. In fact I might make a whole "beginner's guide in 2024/2025" at some point because a lot of info is out there but spread everywhere and being at the beginning of the journey that would help.

Hello @Sedna and also welcome from me too.

It's always good to see new members who have fun designing scenarios for ToT.
I think designing a scenario from a currently ongoing conflict will be for sure a challenge though.

Anyway, I wish you good luck with your scenario and looking forward to it.

Thanks It will be challenging but I'm trying to make it as unbiased and a challenge for the player no matter what faction they use. The possibility of maybe playing out of the box politically might also blur the issue. (For instance, i'm consideirng making the neutral faction not weaker than the others for this reason).

Interestingly though, and that was an idea, is if I made the spy "special forces", it has no issue being a paratrooper. One could imagine black ops being organized by parachuting the unit deep into ennemies lines, including beyond the front which it might have trouble going through if it's dense. The real use of special forces is not winning battles in theory so it would make sense.

So yeah apparently, diplomats actions will supercede attack. Interestingly, trading won't (it only activate on entering a city tile), and as far as I know, settler's behaviour either so it might be possible to make a "military engineer" able to protect itself bettter. Which is cool because the military engineering is an important factor in modern warfare (for instance, building roads/bridges). The potential gameplay of being able to build a bridge on to 1 tile only would be amazing. especially because my map has been designed making sure the problematic rivers from a strategic point of view are not passable because of 1 tile of ocean. If one could build a specialized unit that could change a tile of ocean into a tile of "metallic bridge" that would be simply amazing. I'm sure it must be "simple to code" (press a button => choose direction, check it's ocean change tile, add a unit "bridge on top of it". When unit "bridge" is broken, the tile goes back to Ocean. And I'd btw put that unit on the Kherson bridge. And that could be one of the musketeers or knight's 0/0 units good uses?)

A negative finding is, as far as I know, transport of troops doesn't work on the ground. I have to think about it and check it (again, not sure). A potential mechanics could be to load and unload some units, but I don't know how complicated such scripting could be. Ultimately it's not the biggest deal, it would just be neat being able to move infantry fast with them/protect them as you do so.

A cool finding is that a unit of type 3 (or more precisely: neither land, naval or air) can move through all masses. Not sure it can help in my scenario, but it opens idea for a parallel project of mine that could be Pacific Rim (sci fi lore) with Kaijus moving through the land wether it's water or not.

One erroneous point: "engineer should be left where it is as it is the only place a settler can get the x2 speed to build."

Engineering abilities are actually controlled by flag 5, G) General flags, in the Advanced Unit fields of the Rules Txt. This is mislabeled in the Original Game Rules, but correctly labeled elsewhere. The line for the engineer unit (2nd line) gives engineer abilities when marked with a 0, unlike all the rest. Marked with a 1, it acts like a normal settler unit.

; G) General flags
; 00000001 invisible except during combat: 1 - invisible
; 00000010 non-disbandable (human players only): 1 - cannot disband
; 00000100 0-range-air-unit damage override: 1 - override damage
; 00001000 barbarian units can't be bought off: 1 - can't buy off
; 00010000 unit may enter impassable terrain: 1 - may enter
; 00100000 unit acquires engineering abilities: 1 - engineer
; 01000000 barbarian unit will not expire: 1 - no expire
; 10000000 override .SPR file for this unit: 1 - don't use .SPR

Thanks for that. I think I might have read it in diagonals in the v18 ToTPP manual. When i saw all the new flags I had a look through them. Someone mentionned earlier that engineering is not hard locked anymore (that would be it) and that the spy behaviour can be coded with lua so these are nice to know, if needed. Notably, to make one version for different factions look-wise or specs wise.

 

[Sedna]

I'm new to this but I know some people like that, and I do plan on learning some coding (I have some old school basis so I understand coding but I'd like to learn swift for professional reasons) so I created a github.

GitHub - Sedna-Digital/civ2ukraine: Sedna's CIV2 ukraine scenario

Sedna's CIV2 ukraine scenario. Contribute to Sedna-Digital/civ2ukraine development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

If i'm not incorrect, that would be the correct link for the project, and the first thing I published there is the map version 0.001

I had issues when named "UKRAINE" so I named it TEST and now UKRXXX, using the normal editor. It wouldn't save if using "UKRAINE", is that a known bug?

Map V0.01 without overlay

With overlay



EDIT: plan is to use the mapedit.exe tool to reduce the west part until I can reach moscow at the north. Although limits state 500 the tool limits to 250, I'll have a look at that. I think it's enough to reach moscow and even build its different districts for a more realistic rendition of the capital and its production

 

[Prof. Garfield]

A negative finding is, as far as I know, transport of troops doesn't work on the ground. I have to think about it and check it (again, not sure). A potential mechanics could be to load and unload some units, but I don't know how complicated such scripting could be. Ultimately it's not the biggest deal, it would just be neat being able to move infantry fast with them/protect them as you do so.

I have a template module that can make land and air units "carry" other units more or less like sea transports do, so don't worry about that.

 

[Sedna]

I have a template module that can make land and air units "carry" other units more or less like sea transports do, so don't worry about that.

People mention you as the Guru of Civ2 lua so why am I not surprised by that

 

[Sedna]

@Prof. Garfield
Is it possible to code over the effect of wonders and improvements? I'm guessing this is hardcoded but just asking because who knows.
EDIT: and by this I also imply is it possible to code EXTRA effects of wonders and improvements?

Also, I have two ideas which basically go down to the same coding.
- is it possible to make one unit affect how other units receive or loose hitpoints with a range?
- Idea is : SAM site would make opposite air units loose HP even before approaching + give AEGIS bonus to other units within the area (this one might be hard to code unless there is a way to interfere during a combat)
- With the same idea, a Logistic unit or tile or any kind of entity would make units within its radius replenish between turns.
- Ideally the units having an effect on nearby units would need to be fortified, or "packed" using maybe another key (maybe they could be 2 units, changing from one another that way)?

- Ideally: is it even possible to make units NOT replenish HP when holding/sentrying/fortifying? As a hard rule of the scenario, meaning any unit could only replenish within X tiles of an allied city or logistics unit?
- Is it even possible to stop a fight before either unit is destroyed? Like, count X hits and call the battle off?
- is it possible to make the MP of a unit going out of Fortify state 0 for one turn, so it needs 1 turn to unfortify?

EDIT: i'll throw another one: is it possible for a unit to change characteristics with LUA? As in, it would improve with research, instead of being obsolete and replaced.
also
- could it be possible for a unit if on Forest to use a key and become after one turn the same unit with improvised camo? It is very common to see tanks and any truck or mobile unit to have added improvised wooden or grids to hide better in the ukrainian forest, and also as protection from drones. It woul dbe a neat thing if a unit could use forest to its advantage like this, and become a camouflaged version. They could have extra defense with that, slow movement, have "no ZOC" and either hold better a position, or sneak in behind some enemies better. Ideally they would be "invisible" but I think this is tied to "submarine" and a non naval "submarine" has weird (although interesting for the air) characteristics. I think it can be intersting?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Is it possible to code over the effect of wonders and improvements? I'm guessing this is hardcoded but just asking because who knows.
EDIT: and by this I also imply is it possible to code EXTRA effects of wonders and improvements?

They're hard coded, and so will always take effect*. However, if something can be achieved by Lua (and a lot of things can), you can condition that effect on whether a city/tribe has a certain improvement or wonder, and thereby enhance the effect.

*Lua/TOTPP can change a couple things, like the defense bonus for city walls.

Also, I have two ideas which basically go down to the same coding.
- is it possible to make one unit affect how other units receive or loose hitpoints with a range?
- Idea is : SAM site would make opposite air units loose HP even before approaching + give AEGIS bonus to other units within the area (this one might be hard to code unless there is a way to interfere during a combat)
- With the same idea, a Logistic unit or tile or any kind of entity would make units within its radius replenish between turns.
- Ideally the units having an effect on nearby units would need to be fortified, or "packed" using maybe another key (maybe they could be 2 units, changing from one another that way)?

I believe all this is possible. I think we can control everything about combat now (even letting both units survive). The combatSettings.lua and registerCombatModifiers.lua files in the template are relevant here.

- Ideally: is it even possible to make units NOT replenish HP when holding/sentrying/fortifying? As a hard rule of the scenario, meaning any unit could only replenish within X tiles of an allied city or logistics unit?

If you want to stop units from healing each turn, gen.setMoved can be used to make sure that units that skip their turn still do not get their automatic heal if they don't qualify for it.

- Is it even possible to stop a fight before either unit is destroyed? Like, count X hits and call the battle off?

Yes, that can be changed in combatSettings.lua in the template now.

- is it possible to make the MP of a unit going out of Fortify state 0 for one turn, so it needs 1 turn to unfortify?

Had to test this one out, but the answer is yes, and here's the code:

discreteEvents.onActivateUnit(function(unit,source,repeatMove)
    if gen.isFortified(unit) then
        unit.moveSpent = 255
    end
end)

 

[Sedna]

Thanks so much for your reply! It seems quite powerful that we can alter the combat code a little bit. I would love the front to feel like an attrition game and sometimes the fact the game is turn based gives for ex an advantage to whoever shoots first (they can choose to use howitzers first). So, the gameplay of having units not be able to get their HP back is interesting because it simulates the IRL behaviour of units which is below a certain loss the unit is not operationally viable and has to go back to logistics/hospitals. In some squads for ex if a couple soldiers go down, they are supposed to come back (if they don't have the order to hold a place). Also, it makes sense for mechanical units like tanks, when hit, they can't just repair anywhere without pieces.

I might have added a few questions you missed because I was brainstorming as I was writing them @Prof. Garfield. Notably adding the idea that using Forests to your advantage by using camo version of your unit. + is it possible to redefine the units stats (so they improve with tech advancement for ex). Kind of like Starcraft "+1 attack / +1 defense" research. Can this be added and if yes can a unit using a turn to camouflage itself get, say, +1 in def, no ZOC, and move slower?

I am at a state where I am thinking of wonders, buildings, and units, and before going into a list, I'm brainstorming special units possibilities. Sorry if this is a lot of questions but it helps me brainstorm the 189 units and what advantage can some improvements bring to the game. Especially if we can add some effects (like a wonder) overall to the table, or to the cities.

So far, ideas:

- SAM sites to have an effect on to ennemy air units within X tiles
- support units which allows for replenishment of units within X tiles
- maybe support tile which can be a FOB (forward operated base) outpost. Or that would be what the "new cities" would be before you make them a real city. In which case, also, cities must allow for replenishment in their zone.
- paratrooping spies (special forces) (easy to make)
- Bridge engineering truck. It would turn an ocean tile into a "bridge", and could destroy a bridge. That would make a "bridge" tile type useful in the map
- interestingly, a unit set to type 3 (non land air or ocean) can move anywhere and settle so it is possible that a unit could go over water, and make it into a bridge, and over a bridge make it an ocean (by "mining" or "irrigating" the tile). Otherwise, the land unit neets to have LUA code to create the tile into a direction. The downside of such unit is they have weird behaviour (the AI should not be allowed to use it, or it would do it randomly and move it over water. It means maybe ennemy behavior for bridges could be event scripted so that strategic bridges are targeted and transformed as needed. Ex: destroyin the kherson bridge, or rebuilding it.
- camouflaging troop (like we see IRL: adding camo to the drone launcher, improvised, thus making it harder to find and kill, but not moving. For a tank, they still move, there should be a bonus and a drawback
- Is there some code already so units could team up and there could be a hierarchy from say a platoon to a company to a battalion to a regiment to a division (2 platoons become 1 company). Just the existence of the possibility?
- projectiles from howitzer, drone launchers, missiles. obsolescence with better projectiles and longer range missiles available. How about the AI then?
- plane fighters have the same behaviour as bombers so that they can stay with a bomber and protect it+avoid using one Su34 and kill 10 units in one round.
- second map as flying units map: is it possible to have an AWACS and / or satellite units there that would reveal the map below as they move on the map above? If yes, missiles should also be able to move up to shoot them. If needed, map 3 could be low orbit satellites, map 2 planes, normal map the ground. map 4 underground and possibility for units to dig into the opposite trench like in WW1, trench wars? IRL some underground trenches have ben made. Sounds like overkill but it's an idea, using maps for 4 levels: undergroudn, ground, air, space
- refueller for planes. Apparently if a unit has both air + carrier, it moves by 1 tile and refuels any unit that comes. They can't stay, so it doesn't really act like an air carrier, but it does act like a KC135 of IL78 refueller. Makes for the ability to reach further the ennemy lines once you have destroyed their SAM you can advance a refueller which effectively acts like a flying airbase. It's apparently a thing if you give the double flag. I'm kinda ok with the fact it moves slowly there and stays there, meaning it strategically goes there every turn and can be shot down easily. Not sure I need it LUA coded.
- air transport, that can takeoff and land and unload only on grassland tiles maybe?
- fortification system: improved for entranchement: maybe all infantry units can build a fortress (is it possible without the other settler options?). Either way, maybe fortifying wouldn't give a 50% and fortress a 100% defense bonus, but each turn gives 10%? Is that even possible to give non 50 multiplier? The longer a unit has entranched, the stronger it is in defense?

 

[Buck2005]

Thanks so much for your reply! It seems quite powerful that we can alter the combat code a little bit. I would love the front to feel like an attrition game and sometimes the fact the game is turn based gives for ex an advantage to whoever shoots first (they can choose to use howitzers first). So, the gameplay of having units not be able to get their HP back is interesting because it simulates the IRL behaviour of units which is below a certain loss the unit is not operationally viable and has to go back to logistics/hospitals. In some squads for ex if a couple soldiers go down, they are supposed to come back (if they don't have the order to hold a place). Also, it makes sense for mechanical units like tanks, when hit, they can't just repair anywhere without pieces.

I might have added a few questions you missed because I was brainstorming as I was writing them @Prof. Garfield. Notably adding the idea that using Forests to your advantage by using camo version of your unit. + is it possible to redefine the units stats (so they improve with tech advancement for ex). Kind of like Starcraft "+1 attack / +1 defense" research. Can this be added and if yes can a unit using a turn to camouflage itself get, say, +1 in def, no ZOC, and move slower?

I am at a state where I am thinking of wonders, buildings, and units, and before going into a list, I'm brainstorming special units possibilities. Sorry if this is a lot of questions but it helps me brainstorm the 189 units and what advantage can some improvements bring to the game. Especially if we can add some effects (like a wonder) overall to the table, or to the cities.

So far, ideas:

- SAM sites to have an effect on to ennemy air units within X tiles
- support units which allows for replenishment of units within X tiles
- maybe support tile which can be a FOB (forward operated base) outpost. Or that would be what the "new cities" would be before you make them a real city. In which case, also, cities must allow for replenishment in their zone.
- paratrooping spies (special forces) (easy to make)
- Bridge engineering truck. It would turn an ocean tile into a "bridge", and could destroy a bridge. That would make a "bridge" tile type useful in the map
- interestingly, a unit set to type 3 (non land air or ocean) can move anywhere and settle so it is possible that a unit could go over water, and make it into a bridge, and over a bridge make it an ocean (by "mining" or "irrigating" the tile). Otherwise, the land unit neets to have LUA code to create the tile into a direction. The downside of such unit is they have weird behaviour (the AI should not be allowed to use it, or it would do it randomly and move it over water. It means maybe ennemy behavior for bridges could be event scripted so that strategic bridges are targeted and transformed as needed. Ex: destroyin the kherson bridge, or rebuilding it.
- camouflaging troop (like we see IRL: adding camo to the drone launcher, improvised, thus making it harder to find and kill, but not moving. For a tank, they still move, there should be a bonus and a drawback
- Is there some code already so units could team up and there could be a hierarchy from say a platoon to a company to a battalion to a regiment to a division (2 platoons become 1 company). Just the existence of the possibility?
- projectiles from howitzer, drone launchers, missiles. obsolescence with better projectiles and longer range missiles available. How about the AI then?
- plane fighters have the same behaviour as bombers so that they can stay with a bomber and protect it+avoid using one Su34 and kill 10 units in one round.
- second map as flying units map: is it possible to have an AWACS and / or satellite units there that would reveal the map below as they move on the map above? If yes, missiles should also be able to move up to shoot them. If needed, map 3 could be low orbit satellites, map 2 planes, normal map the ground. map 4 underground and possibility for units to dig into the opposite trench like in WW1, trench wars? IRL some underground trenches have ben made. Sounds like overkill but it's an idea, using maps for 4 levels: undergroudn, ground, air, space
- refueller for planes. Apparently if a unit has both air + carrier, it moves by 1 tile and refuels any unit that comes. They can't stay, so it doesn't really act like an air carrier, but it does act like a KC135 of IL78 refueller. Makes for the ability to reach further the ennemy lines once you have destroyed their SAM you can advance a refueller which effectively acts like a flying airbase. It's apparently a thing if you give the double flag. I'm kinda ok with the fact it moves slowly there and stays there, meaning it strategically goes there every turn and can be shot down easily. Not sure I need it LUA coded.
- air transport, that can takeoff and land and unload only on grassland tiles maybe?
- fortification system: improved for entranchement: maybe all infantry units can build a fortress (is it possible without the other settler options?). Either way, maybe fortifying wouldn't give a 50% and fortress a 100% defense bonus, but each turn gives 10%? Is that even possible to give non 50 multiplier? The longer a unit has entranched, the stronger it is in defense?

Sorry for interfering. However, doesn’t the very interesting and well-thought-out system of combat units outlined here conflict with the concept outlined in the initial post:

I want it to be easy to understand and play right away. I find a lot of scenarios are difficult to master right away. I want the units and their cost to feel similar to known units (like the conscript unit, the marine, armor etc). New units will be improved versions that the player will understand and pick up from.
I am considering altering the rules to avoid a few things: it might be longer to increase a city size. It will be harder to go beyond sizes (like aqueduct/sanitation) to avoid popping cities everywhere and tripling the production, but it will be possible to create mini cities which will look and feel like military outposts. A costly permit to create a unit (replacing the aqueduct) will be needed. Because of the timeline of the scenario (a turn = a day or something) this will be a very very big investment if done, to discourage players from overly developping a country with regular Civ2 rules.
Buildings will be similar, but they will make sense to a player picking up the game. I'm considering making the pictures similar to their regular equivalent in color so the player feels what is a Temple equivalent, what is a Collosseum equivalent etc.
Wonders will exists in a different way, some pre-given because they make sense (like UN to NATO only, Pyramids to NATO or neutral to avoid ukraine or russia getting the advantagge I don't like etc.).

Maybe hyper-realistic detail will make it harder for new players to enter the scenario? It seems that JPetroski have already dealt with a similar problem in his “OTR” scenario, which is undoubtedly grandiose in quality and realism. However, I would like to emphasize once again that only you decide what and how to do in your scenario.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Notably adding the idea that using Forests to your advantage by using camo version of your unit. + is it possible to redefine the units stats (so they improve with tech advancement for ex). Kind of like Starcraft "+1 attack / +1 defense" research. Can this be added and if yes can a unit using a turn to camouflage itself get, say, +1 in def, no ZOC, and move slower?

Unit combat stats can be easily modified if certain conditions are met, including techs acquired. The customComsic module could let you change movement allowances, and the unitData module could let you keep track of which units are or are not camouflaged.

In the case of camouflage, I'd use Lua to replace units with ones of a different type, so the player can more easily tell the difference.

SAM sites to have an effect on to ennemy air units within X tiles

Yes, this can be done. Combat stats can be changed based on if a SAM is nearby, or an 'onEnterTile' event might do something to a wandering aircraft.

- support units which allows for replenishment of units within X tiles

Yes.

- Bridge engineering truck. It would turn an ocean tile into a "bridge", and could destroy a bridge. That would make a "bridge" tile type useful in the map

- interestingly, a unit set to type 3 (non land air or ocean) can move anywhere and settle so it is possible that a unit could go over water, and make it into a bridge, and over a bridge make it an ocean (by "mining" or "irrigating" the tile). Otherwise, the land unit neets to have LUA code to create the tile into a direction. The downside of such unit is they have weird behaviour (the AI should not be allowed to use it, or it would do it randomly and move it over water. It means maybe ennemy behavior for bridges could be event scripted so that strategic bridges are targeted and transformed as needed. Ex: destroyin the kherson bridge, or rebuilding it.

You could make a unit for the human player that could change the terrain of an adjacent square to a "bridge", but I'd recommend making that sort of thing event driven instead. If a player's troops hold both sides of the river, there could be an option to build a bridge after a few turns. Then the AI could get it for free if conditions are met. Definitely don't try to use irrigation/mining/domain 3 units; the AI won't do it right.

- camouflaging troop (like we see IRL: adding camo to the drone launcher, improvised, thus making it harder to find and kill, but not moving. For a tank, they still move, there should be a bonus and a drawback

I think you might be getting too far into the details of combat here. Civ II is much more of a strategic game than a tactical one, and the details of troop camouflage is unnecessary IMO. The troops on the ground are going to try to stay alive and be effective. If government policy can change the effectiveness of that, then just give a passive bonus.

- Is there some code already so units could team up and there could be a hierarchy from say a platoon to a company to a battalion to a regiment to a division (2 platoons become 1 company). Just the existence of the possibility?

Not sure what you mean here. You can give a combat bonus if other units of the same type are nearby, if that's what you mean.

- projectiles from howitzer, drone launchers, missiles. obsolescence with better projectiles and longer range missiles available. How about the AI then?

A couple scenarios have had the AI generate munitions at appropriate places, but that is something that must be custom coded. The Template's munitions module only lets human players generate munitions via key press.

- plane fighters have the same behaviour as bombers so that they can stay with a bomber and protect it+avoid using one Su34 and kill 10 units in one round.

If I understand you, this is just setting the range (turns aloft) of fighters to 2+ instead of 1.

- second map as flying units map: is it possible to have an AWACS and / or satellite units there that would reveal the map below as they move on the map above? If yes, missiles should also be able to move up to shoot them. If needed, map 3 could be low orbit satellites, map 2 planes, normal map the ground. map 4 underground and possibility for units to dig into the opposite trench like in WW1, trench wars? IRL some underground trenches have ben made. Sounds like overkill but it's an idea, using maps for 4 levels: undergroudn, ground, air, space

You're making this too complicated and too tactical. This scenario does not need an underground map or a space map. Just have a separate unit with high attack or something if you want to simulate undermining trenches. And just reveal parts of the map via Lua instead of a space satellite system. Maybe a high altitude map makes sense if you want aircraft to cross the front lines, though in practice I think that applies more to missiles/drones than manned fighters.

- refueller for planes. Apparently if a unit has both air + carrier, it moves by 1 tile and refuels any unit that comes. They can't stay, so it doesn't really act like an air carrier, but it does act like a KC135 of IL78 refueller. Makes for the ability to reach further the ennemy lines once you have destroyed their SAM you can advance a refueller which effectively acts like a flying airbase. It's apparently a thing if you give the double flag. I'm kinda ok with the fact it moves slowly there and stays there, meaning it strategically goes there every turn and can be shot down easily. Not sure I need it LUA coded.

Is air re-fueling relevant in this war? The only thing I can think of is Russia using it to be able to operate from bases away from Ukrainian drones.

- air transport, that can takeoff and land and unload only on grassland tiles maybe?

Air transport is available, but it will have to land in cities/airfields. You could "parachute" units out of the aircraft, though.

- fortification system: improved for entranchement: maybe all infantry units can build a fortress (is it possible without the other settler options?). Either way, maybe fortifying wouldn't give a 50% and fortress a 100% defense bonus, but each turn gives 10%? Is that even possible to give non 50 multiplier? The longer a unit has entranched, the stronger it is in defense?

The fortify/fortress bonuses can be adjusted, and don't need to be multiples of 50%. Increasing defensive value of fortifications over time should be possible (using the unitData module to keep track of how long the unit has been fortified), but will probably require some custom code.

 

[Dadais]

fortification system: improved for entranchement: maybe all infantry units can build a fortress (is it possible without the other settler options?). Either way, maybe fortifying wouldn't give a 50% and fortress a 100% defense bonus, but each turn gives 10%? Is that even possible to give non 50 multiplier?

I'd use a terrain resource or two in plain tiles to make "entranchements" and give a % chance for "fortified"* order infantries to upgrade its tile (bonus of tile set in rules.txt) once per tile each turn, the more fortified infantries on tile the more %.

*which comes after the "fortify" order.

But hey. Your scenario, your vision.

 

[Sedna]

Before Answering, I commited to github my brainstorming folder. Notably

- rules are sliced into different .txt for ease of reading and modifying
- I had a look at COSMIC. Basic ideas: road multiplies by 6 (due to size, also makes roads way more strategic to use). Railroad multiplier 2, not sure how the advanced multipliers work. I'm not sure how I can know what I can put in COSMIC2 so I put "City population loss, 2" because I think it's how I tell the game not to destroy a city at size 1 (ref: pdf ToTPP v18)
- No stack kills, 1 i'm curious how it affects the game tactically so i threw it there.
- Navigable rivers, 1, for curiosity (I'm considering russians being able to bring the Russian Caspian Flotilla to the black Sea, Sea of Azov, and I need to make the Volga-Don Canal which is the primary idea for this to exist)
- added flags for destruction or not of buildings. I want the city to basically be empty when taken, but I might change my mind and let some randommness. I'm just imagining another Bakhmut where a city ends up basically totaled. It should be hard to take a city in this scenario and when you do it's a pyrrhic victory.
- I spent some time in IMPROVE to think about the city improvements, the wonders and how they interact. Spent some time tweaking how especially factories would work with hoover dam, according to https://sleague.civfanatics.com/index.php?title=Using_Improvements_and_Wonders

 

[Sedna]

Sorry for interfering. However, doesn’t the very interesting and well-thought-out system of combat units outlined here conflict with the concept outlined in the initial post:




Maybe hyper-realistic detail will make it harder for new players to enter the scenario? It seems that JPetroski have already dealt with a similar problem in his “OTR” scenario, which is undoubtedly grandiose in quality and realism. However, I would like to emphasize once again that only you decide what and how to do in your scenario.

That's something I have been thinking about. On one side i'd like units to feel as usual so I'm probably going for the typical infantry + mechanized + howitzes + planes etc. On the other side, adding a few mechanics would be nice. I think that wouldn't be so much of a hassle to teach in a readme and in an event at the opening of the scenario to check at least
- range mechanics (anything that shoots far: press K)
- support/logistics mechanics (move and place logistic units)
- SAM defenses (circle around them = planes loose HP)

The rest would be kinda similar with tweaks.

I think it would be okay, but I'd rather have too much first and dumb it down if needed. Maybe it can be chosen at the oppening of the scenario as well, if you want to play with "standard mechanics" and that would flag all special mechanics, and your typical howitzer vs armor vs infantry battles would occur, no bridge, no awacs etc?

 

[Sedna]

Unit combat stats can be easily modified if certain conditions are met, including techs acquired. The customComsic module could let you change movement allowances, and the unitData module could let you keep track of which units are or are not camouflaged.

In the case of camouflage, I'd use Lua to replace units with ones of a different type, so the player can more easily tell the difference.

I was thinking of this. Maybe just for some tanks, early T72 etc which immediately found a need for anti drone or camo. I'm not sure I want to complicate the roster of 189 units though but it's a thought for maybe just some tanks.

Yes, this can be done. Combat stats can be changed based on if a SAM is nearby, or an 'onEnterTile' event might do something to a wandering aircraft.

Yes.

That's pretty cool. I think playing with distance from a dangerous tile, and a helpful one, would help the scenario follow this trench war and non air domnance but drone and missiles shoots possible. I'm just thinking the movements of "helpful logistics" units would need to be coded somehow and that would be a pain. The AI founding a FOB (forward operated base, as a little city) seems possible though so the range could be relatively generous.

Unit combat stats can be easily modified if certain conditions are met, including techs acquired. The customComsic module could let you change movement allowances,

You could make a unit for the human player that could change the terrain of an adjacent square to a "bridge", but I'd recommend making that sort of thing event driven instead. If a player's troops hold both sides of the river, there could be an option to build a bridge after a few turns. Then the AI could get it for free if conditions are met. Definitely don't try to use irrigation/mining/domain 3 units; the AI won't do it right.

That's actually a simple way that I like: program the few places where a bridge makes sense (maybe signal them with one tile of bridge of both sides, and pop a few AI units which try regularly to populate these tiles from the nearby city if it owns it?)

I think you might be getting too far into the details of combat here. Civ II is much more of a strategic game than a tactical one, and the details of troop camouflage is unnecessary IMO. The troops on the ground are going to try to stay alive and be effective. If government policy can change the effectiveness of that, then just give a passive bonus.

Point taken. Not sure I want a passive bonus just for that but I'm thinking that instead of rending obsolete all units until a point, having them stay on the table with a few passive bonuses according to research would be nice. Say, delivery of better ammo, some units get +1 attack. Anti drone and improvised armor: +1 defense.

Not sure what you mean here. You can give a combat bonus if other units of the same type are nearby, if that's what you mean.

What I meant is what is possible in later Civ games: build or team up a Battalion or bigger. Say you can build soldiers, at some point your country organizes itself well enough to allow you to build a battalion (or whatever) of them (biggeer stronger unit) and is it possible to merge two units. esentially you decide to kill 2 units to create another one? The map could have standard units, and a few combined units (say an attack and a defense unit together could make a bigger unit that's more balanced). I'm not sure if it's a good idea because a strong unit can easily dominate an area. For ex, the battlecruiser can annihilate everything in its area for a long time (and it usually gets Veteran status quickly because of that too). It's just an idea

enarios have had the AI generate munitions at appropriate places, but that is something that must be custom coded. The Template's munitions module only lets human players generate munitions via key press.

That what I would like. A way to help the AI would be that those units pop automatically every turn one of those ammo and it just controls it like a missile? It would not be clever, but it would at least use it even if the base AI of the unit would make it attack directly anyways. Its kind of like the trireme can die for a human, but not for an AI, to go around the fact the AI is pretty dumb in Civ2.

If I understand you, this is just setting the range (turns aloft) of fighters to 2+ instead of 1.

Exactly, and I'm thinking it's how figter planes should be anyways: more, cheaper, can also attack ground but not 10 times. Serve as defense to the bombers too, just like when you couple a pikeman with a catapult early in the game to be sure the catapult can shoot. Here it's to be sure the bomber survives.

You're making this too complicated and too tactical. This scenario does not need an underground map or a space map. Just have a separate unit with high attack or something if you want to simulate undermining trenches. And just reveal parts of the map via Lua instead of a space satellite system. Maybe a high altitude map makes sense if you want aircraft to cross the front lines, though in practice I think that applies more to missiles/drones than manned fighters.

I'm definitely overthinking at this stage, to dumb down what I need (complex problem thought in many simple problems > elimination/solve > simpler solution. So yeah, I was thinking "what if" about extra maps. I was thinking it would be nice to have that extra map and shoot towards satellites, and move your own. Probably overkill for this scenario like you say. Another thing I'm thinking of is just making a plane that has lot of MP, 2 tile vision, that's your awacs and you try to get vision without loosing too much against the SAMs. That could be a way simpler way to deal with it: build awacs/spy planes, probe, nothing else to mod.

Is air re-fueling relevant in this war? The only thing I can think of is Russia using it to be able to operate from bases away from Ukrainian drones.

I'm thinking long term in the scenario of it it goes global. It's a simple way to make air refueling for the player, if they want to. I wouldn't try to code anything from the AI perspective as they can build airbases anyways. I'm just thinking of "nice to have" litte featues which don't affect too much the casual player either.

Air transport is available, but it will have to land in cities/airfields. You could "parachute" units out of the aircraft, though.

Understood. I'm thinking about the basic airport mechanics but it still is valid as the normal mechanics only transports one troop, and not all bases/cities would have it built.

The fortify/fortress bonuses can be adjusted, and don't need to be multiples of 50%. Increasing defensive value of fortifications over time should be possible (using the unitData module to keep track of how long the unit has been fortified), but will probably require some custom code.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. Everything being a multiple of 50% made me question if that's a hardcoded number.

I'd use a terrain resource or two in plain tiles to make "entranchements" and give a % chance for "fortified"* order infantries to upgrade its tile (bonus of tile set in rules.txt) once per tile each turn, the more fortified infantries on tile the more %.

*which comes after the "fortify" order.

But hey. Your scenario, your vision.

Hum that's interesting. I think @Prof. Garfield has a "simpler" way to check that in LUA as he mentioned by checking if a unit is fortified. Say until it reaches +XXX%, you add 10% per turn. Something as simple as that maybe? I was initially thinking of Fortresses looking like trenches, or trench tiles being able to be made, so that the front really makes the landscape change too. A combination of both could be interesting though. Maybe when a unit gets over a certain XXX% the tile transforms into "trench" tile which also gives a defense bonus, and it really forces a trench front and attrition war with the need to resort to missiles and technology to overcome the status quo? And it could happen at different places of the map whenever there's many units fortifying (that's also why I wanted a lot of forest and hills on the map, so the AI is drawn to use them near your cities).

@Prof. Garfield I have thought of all the different factories being "armor"/"air" etc factories to simulate like IRL which factories exist and where (a minimum of realism is possible, there is info of where and what is produced) but could a city production be dictated by its improvements too? Say you can't build tanks without the armor factory? Is that overthinking + destroying the AI again? I was thinking an AI would auto pop one of the basic units of the type, according to the existance or not of the factory, but again, maybe that's too much.

Sorry for the many questions and overthinking, but I'm at this stage of the project where I'm thinking of the units the wonder and the improvements, and that makes me think of many specificities that would be nice to experiment with. I'd like to be careful like @Buck2005 said that a casual player could also have fun. Not everyone wins at deity in Civ2, a lot play in chieftain or warlord so i'd like that the extra features would be needed/good for an experienced player trying a hard challenge, but not necessary if someone overlooks them and plays normally. Also maybe a choice at the beginning between a regular-ish game vs bells and whistles is possible. The SAM, missiles launchers and logistics system attracts me a lot because that's precisely how this conflicts is happening: it's basically missile range vs logistic depots, and ability to replenish and maintain the frontlines according to that. That might be the cool feature of the scenario, and it could be disabled for a casual player so that it can also be played regularly by just massing units in an easier difficulty. A few things like units poping could be adapted to the difficulty chosen. It could be between two: deity for using the scenario normally, and warlord for casual playing. Things I planned to also add like money helps vs sanctions could be balanced according to that.

 

[Sedna]

I'd use a terrain resource or two in plain tiles to make "entranchements" and give a % chance for "fortified"* order infantries to upgrade its tile (bonus of tile set in rules.txt) once per tile each turn, the more fortified infantries on tile the more %.

*which comes after the "fortify" order.

But hey. Your scenario, your vision.

I just realizd your terrain ressources would mean cosmetic and alternative "fortresses". I like this idea actually

 

[Prof. Garfield]

@Prof. Garfield I have thought of all the different factories being "armor"/"air" etc factories to simulate like IRL which factories exist and where (a minimum of realism is possible, there is info of where and what is produced) but could a city production be dictated by its improvements too? Say you can't build tanks without the armor factory? Is that overthinking + destroying the AI again? I was thinking an AI would auto pop one of the basic units of the type, according to the existance or not of the factory, but again, maybe that's too much.

Requiring a city to have certain improvements in order to be allowed to build particular units is possible. The template even comes with a code generator for that kind of code (note that I changed the template file structure a bit since I made the linked video).

 

[Buck2005]

I'd like to be careful like @Buck2005 said that a casual player could also have fun. Not everyone wins at deity in Civ2, a lot play in chieftain or warlord so i'd like that the extra features would be needed/good for an experienced player trying a hard challenge, but not necessary if someone overlooks them and plays normally. Also maybe a choice at the beginning between a regular-ish game vs bells and whistles is possible.

I was somewhat surprised by your extremely fast experience in mastering TOTPP and learning new game mechanics (initially, just a couple of weeks ago, you positioned yourself as an exclusively MGE user). Usually this takes a little longer. Which is extremely exciting, since you are clearly the new prolific TOTPP scenario designer.

Also, I highly appreciated your ability to separate casual players who, due to circumstances, cannot appreciate all the advantages of the platform. And advanced and high-quality players who will undoubtedly read the README, and will then be able to play at a truly advanced level. )