Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch

[jkp1187]

Chickensalad,

I wouldn't go as far as forcing units with cargo to defend if they are the 'best' unit. Yes, that does limit the utility of loaded missile cruisers a little, but I think it's very logical to assume that ships without cargo in the stack are acting as 'escorts' for the ships that have cargo, regardless of strength, just because a sunk missile cruiser + 4 cruise missiles is a LOT of hammers to lose at once.

I do think, however, that there is almost no point to building stealth destroyers if they do NOT step up to defend while in a stack. I think either (1) Stealth Destroyers should be allowed to defend if an enemy unit enters their square (after all, enemy ships would be able to acquire line-of-sight if they got close enough, no matter how invisible to RADAR/SONAR they may be,) or:
(2) The XML file should be changed so that Destroyers are not obsoleted with Stealth Destroyers, so that an escort-class warship can still be constructed in the Future era.

I personally prefer (1) to (2)....

 

[Wodan]

Good points, but I think I would suggest a refinement.

The situation that I would be concerned about is when you're going to lose anyway. Say there's a convoy with a loaded galleon escorted by a half dozen empty caravels. It get attacked by a promoted frigate. The frigate will have what, 90% odds even against the galleon. Nobody in his right mind would want the galleon to defend first. Throw away a caravel... that's what they're in the convoy for.

The proposed solution for the stealth situation (the player would simply have the loaded stealth destroyer travel by itself) doesn't work here for non-stealth. And, the stealth solution also has a problem because a stealth traveling by itself can still be swarmed. So, for me, that proposed solution adds as many problems as it solves.

Ultimately this whole thing is a messy issue, and whatever the solution somebody is probably going to be unhappy. That's probably why Bhruic hasn't done anything yet.

One idea I had was to simply muiltiply the strength of any loaded unit by the combat probability -- purely for determination of which unit defends. So, a convoy with empty caravels and a loaded galleon attacked by a frigate with 90% probability against the galleon would use str 3 for the caravels and str 4*.1 = str 0.4 for the galleon (ties go to the unloaded ship) so one of the caravels defends. Likewise, do the same for stealth ships. Let stealth defend, and if it happens to be loaded, simply multiply by the combat probability to determine if it is chosen as defender. Say a loaded stealth destroyer has 90% chance to win (10% chance to lose), then it's str for purpose of determining if it defends is, oh I don't remember what the base str is, say 40, so it would have 40*.9 = 36.0. Again, that's just to determine if it is chosen to defend. During the actual combat it would use its full strength of course.

Wodan

 

[_alphaBeta_]

I'm away from the game right now, but do stealth destroyers and regular destroyers have the same strength/movement characteristics? If so, you could just remove the ability of the destroyer to upgrade to a stealth destroyer. This, in turn, would allow you to build both based on what you're trying to do.

If not, you could always remove the stealth destroyers ability to be a stealth unit in the XML. Personally, I think it's a silly trait and should be left to subs only.

 

[jkp1187]

Good points, but I think I would suggest a refinement.

The situation that I would be concerned about is when you're going to lose anyway. Say there's a convoy with a loaded galleon escorted by a half dozen empty caravels. It get attacked by a promoted frigate. The frigate will have what, 90% odds even against the galleon. Nobody in his right mind would want the galleon to defend first. Throw away a caravel... that's what they're in the convoy for.

The proposed solution for the stealth situation (the player would simply have the loaded stealth destroyer travel by itself) doesn't work here for non-stealth. And, the stealth solution also has a problem because a stealth traveling by itself can still be swarmed. So, for me, that proposed solution adds as many problems as it solves.

Ultimately this whole thing is a messy issue, and whatever the solution somebody is probably going to be unhappy. That's probably why Bhruic hasn't done anything yet.

One idea I had was to simply muiltiply the strength of any loaded unit by the combat probability -- purely for determination of which unit defends. So, a convoy with empty caravels and a loaded galleon attacked by a frigate with 90% probability against the galleon would use str 3 for the caravels and str 4*.1 = str 0.4 for the galleon (ties go to the unloaded ship) so one of the caravels defends. Likewise, do the same for stealth ships. Let stealth defend, and if it happens to be loaded, simply multiply by the combat probability to determine if it is chosen as defender. Say a loaded stealth destroyer has 90% chance to win (10% chance to lose), then it's str for purpose of determining if it defends is, oh I don't remember what the base str is, say 40, so it would have 40*.9 = 36.0. Again, that's just to determine if it is chosen to defend. During the actual combat it would use its full strength of course.

Wodan

I like your game mechanic suggestion for cargo carriers and their escorts, but I think you might be confusing the two issues a little.

First, I think that Stealth Destroyers should step up and defend a stack (regardless of whether there's cargo carriers or not,) when they're they strongest unit available. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong!) this is independent from the cargo/escort issue, so the outcome of that issue shouldn't affect the stealth destroyer issue. Unless there's something I'm not aware of, this is a relatively straightforward issue and there's no reason why this couldn't be done (at least, conceptually, I see this as improving gameplay without a danger of unbalancing/unintended consequences -- there may be technical issues in making this correction, of course.)

2.) Concerning Missile Cruisers that are cargo carriers (AFAIK, Stealth Destroyers do *not* carry missiles), your mechanic is interesting and probably deserves some thought. But my argument for changing the mechanic for Stealth Destroyers isn't affected by the outcome of this point.

EDIT:

After doing a little bit of investigation online (I'm at work and don't have access to the XML files either,) I guess it's a problem with the way the 'invisible' trait works. (I found a thread indicating that subs don't necessarily step up to defend stacks, either.) The Stealth Destroyer appears to have the same strength as the regular Destroyer.

In retrospect, I don't know if it's possible/worthwhile for Bhruic to go messing around in the SDK files to fix this, as he would have to make a special exception for the stealth destroyer and leave the submarines as-is (and/or it just opens another undesired can o' worms over whether or not the Submarines should maybe ALSO step up and defend when an enemy unit enters their squares...) Maybe the best solution to the Stealth Destroyer is just to leave them as-is, but don't have them obsolete the regular Destroyer? That's an easy XML job.

threads I referenced:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239576
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=236379

 

[Wodan]

Yes, you're correct, I did confuse the two.

Regarding stealth: I don't think we should single out stealth destroyers. Any invisible unit should defend. (Except for non-combat units such as spies.)

Regarding loaded/cargo ships: Sounds like you think there is some potential in my suggestion. I've been thinking about it some more and I haven't been able to come up with any negatives. Anyone? Bueller?

Wodan

 

[Roland Johansen]

What's the can of worms that is going to be opened when submarines defend the stack? They are quite capable combat units and would only defend when the stronger missile cruisers and stealth destroyers would have already been defeated.

In real life the submarines would also try to protect the task force which at that point would probably only consist of transport type vessels (loaded transports, loaded aircraft carriers, loaded missile cruisers) as the game uses the stronger defenders first.

I don't see the issues with submarines defending the task force. The most logical thing (real life) would be if stealth type units (submarines and stealth destroyers) would just defend a stack when they are part of a stack of ships. Isn't that what the player would expect before reading threads about these issues on civfanatics?

 

[jkp1187]

What's the can of worms that is going to be opened when submarines defend the stack? They are quite capable combat units and would only defend when the stronger missile cruisers and stealth destroyers would have already been defeated.

Well, I view any change that would affect elements of the game that it wasn't my intention to change as a 'can of worms'. There may indeed be no earth-shaking changes by introducing the change to both Stealth DD's and Subs, but it was only my intention to change the behavior of Stealth DDs, not Subs. In this case, if I correctly understand how the "invisible" flag works, subs will not engage in combat if an enemy unit that cannot see them (say, a battleship or missile cruiser) enters that sub's square. (Pls. correct me if I'm wrong on that one....) That capability would be lost under this change.

Subs/attack subs can be used as scouts far from home. It may be useful for them to retain the ability to hide from vessels that can't see them (i.e., let those vessels pass through the sub's own square without combat) in pursuit of that role. (And, from a real-life perspective, it is quite consistent with the ability of a sub to 'run silent, run deep' when enemy vessels are passing above.)

In real life the submarines would also try to protect the task force which at that point would probably only consist of transport type vessels (loaded transports, loaded aircraft carriers, loaded missile cruisers) as the game uses the stronger defenders first.

I don't see the issues with submarines defending the task force. The most logical thing (real life) would be if stealth type units (submarines and stealth destroyers) would just defend a stack when they are part of a stack of ships. Isn't that what the player would expect before reading threads about these issues on civfanatics?

This is a good idea -- only in a stack, invisible units should step up to defend. If not in a stack, invisible units can remain invisible if an enemy unit attempts to enter their square. I don't know how difficult that would be to implement on a technical level, but I can't think of a bad game rules unintended consequence off the top of my head.


EDIT: The above assumes that there aren't any issues with Stealth Destroyers defending against airstrikes. I believe that Stealth DDs will always step up to defend against an air attack....

 

[ChickenSalad]

One idea I had was to simply muiltiply the strength of any loaded unit by the combat probability -- purely for determination of which unit defends. So, a convoy with empty caravels and a loaded galleon attacked by a frigate with 90% probability against the galleon would use str 3 for the caravels and str 4*.1 = str 0.4 for the galleon (ties go to the unloaded ship) so one of the caravels defends. Likewise, do the same for stealth ships. Let stealth defend, and if it happens to be loaded, simply multiply by the combat probability to determine if it is chosen as defender. Say a loaded stealth destroyer has 90% chance to win (10% chance to lose), then it's str for purpose of determining if it defends is, oh I don't remember what the base str is, say 40, so it would have 40*.9 = 36.0. Again, that's just to determine if it is chosen to defend. During the actual combat it would use its full strength of course.

That sounds pretty reasonable actualy. Seems to me this might solve that one issue.



As for the stealth issue:
Not having the destroyers get obsoleted sound like another reasonable idea to me. I'm not sure but I'd guess they're a few hammers cheaper to build? So why not just let em in so the players can decide tween a) stealth and b) convoy purpose?

I don't know if that's possible but how about this:
If a unit (incl. subs, stealth) is in a stack, it'll defend the stack against any attackers. If it's just on the same tile as the stack but not part of the stack and has stealth, it won't defend UNLESS the attacker can see the invisible unit (e.g. stealth destroyer attacking stack with separate stealth destroyer on same tile, the separate sd would be treated as valid defender; if the attacker is a standard destroyer, the stealth destroyer won't defend).

That way the player would actively define his invisible unit as a stack defender by making it part of the group. If the player just wants it near the stack but not acting as a stack defender, s/he'd simply not make it part of the group/stack but move it separately.



Edit: Ah, seems jkp1187 posted the same idea while I was writing it.

 

[jkp1187]

Edit: Ah, seems jkp1187 posted the same idea while I was writing it.

Well, actually Roland said it first, I was just re-stating it...

 

[Maben]

@ Maben
Bhruic explained a way that works also in MP at post 30 in http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=245988&page=2

Nonetheless, it is worth noting that if you do this, you will probably find that in MP every time you start a game others receive a warning that you have a modded version of the game. If you play with anyone you don't know (online for instance), this may cause a problem! Other than that, it works a treat.

Thanks Aquatic, that was a big help! I only play LAN games so we all know that we're not modding stuff beyond this . Still don't understand why a hidden screen that you don't have to look at was considered "ugly" and removed...

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well, actually Roland said it first, I was just re-stating it...

It's a pretty logical idea and Bhruic himself also suggested it in this same thread a month ago and I've seen the suggestion before that. If you play the game for the first time and have a stealth unit in a stack, then you'd expect it to defend the vulnerable transportation units within the stack when better defenders have been eliminated. It's a nasty surprise when they don't. So it's no wonder that many people have come up with the same suggestion for improvement of the issue of stealth units.

Somehow this whole stealth unit issue got mixed up with the issue of transportation units which is in my opinion a separate issue. Both can be handled individually.

 

[KMadCandy]

EDIT: The above assumes that there aren't any issues with Stealth Destroyers defending against airstrikes. I believe that Stealth DDs will always step up to defend against an air attack....

barbarian stealth DDs don't. it could be they're just stupid captains since they can't build them normally? i did a WB test just now, and barbs were the quickest way i could think of. i gave myself some stealth bombers and a stealth DD, the barbs got 2 stacks, each with a ship of the line and a stealth DD. bombing stack 1, the SoL was damaged to max and no further, but the SDD never admitted it was there. so it didn't take any damage and it never tried to hurt my planes. when my own SDD swam out and saw the barb SDDs, at that point the barb SDDs started reacting to my stealth bombers. after i officially legally knew they were there, they did take damage and they shot down one of my planes.

The situation that I would be concerned about is when you're going to lose anyway. Say there's a convoy with a loaded galleon escorted by a half dozen empty caravels. It get attacked by a promoted frigate. The frigate will have what, 90% odds even against the galleon. Nobody in his right mind would want the galleon to defend first. Throw away a caravel... that's what they're in the convoy for.

yes please! even tho i don't claim to be in my right mind, i want those caravels to fight before the galleon.

 

[jkp1187]

barbarian stealth DDs don't. it could be they're just stupid captains since they can't build them normally? i did a WB test just now, and barbs were the quickest way i could think of. i gave myself some stealth bombers and a stealth DD, the barbs got 2 stacks, each with a ship of the line and a stealth DD. bombing stack 1, the SoL was damaged to max and no further, but the SDD never admitted it was there. so it didn't take any damage and it never tried to hurt my planes. when my own SDD swam out and saw the barb SDDs, at that point the barb SDDs started reacting to my stealth bombers. after i officially legally knew they were there, they did take damage and they shot down one of my planes.

Hmm. If this applies to non-barbarian units, then this feels like one of those rules restrictions that the people who wrote the rules didn't really think all the way through. Not criticizing, I'm sure they had a lot on their plate, but I absolutely think that SDDs need to defend against air attacks on the stack, regardless of whether or not they're "seen" or "unseen". The other units in the stack are seen -- that's enough in my book.

yes please! even tho i don't claim to be in my right mind, i want those caravels to fight before the galleon.

Kmad -- isn't this the way things are now? Units without cargo (regardless of strength) will defend before units with cargo (regardless of strength)? So in your scenario, the empty caravels will always defend before the loaded galleon....

And does anyone remember if there was a reason why the SDD change wasn't implemented?

(I tried searching through the thread, and it didn't look like it, but I could easily have missed something. Grumble. I think we should have our own subforum to talk about the unofficial patch....we're already over 1300 posts in this thread....)

 

[Wodan]

isn't this the way things are now? Units without cargo (regardless of strength) will defend before units with cargo (regardless of strength)? So in your scenario, the empty caravels will always defend before the loaded galleon....

Yes, that's how it is now, for this example. But it doesn't work for other examples.

If we're going to suggest a change in how it works top fix those other examples, then we need to be careful that we preserve the things that work how we expect (and want them) to work, and not just fix the things that currently don't.

The underlying issue is this: a human player has an intuitive game expectation that the strongest unit will defend, except when that unit is carrying cargo, in which case there is a risk factor and the human wants that unit to defend if it was going to win anyway, and to sit out the battle if it was not, as well as all cases in between. The only real way for the game to evaluate a risk factor is to use some sort of formula percentage, and I think that's where my suggestion comes in.

Wodan

 

[jkp1187]

Yes, that's how it is now, for this example. But it doesn't work for other examples.

If we're going to suggest a change in how it works top fix those other examples, then we need to be careful that we preserve the things that work how we expect (and want them) to work, and not just fix the things that currently don't.

The underlying issue is this: a human player has an intuitive game expectation that the strongest unit will defend, except when that unit is carrying cargo, in which case there is a risk factor and the human wants that unit to defend if it was going to win anyway, and to sit out the battle if it was not, as well as all cases in between. The only real way for the game to evaluate a risk factor is to use some sort of formula percentage, and I think that's where my suggestion comes in.

Wodan

That is probably true, but I was trying to clear up any misunderstandings on Kmad's part, lest she go off and try to defend a stack of loaded aircraft carriers with triremes. Probably more important that we're all on the same page with regard to what the rules are, no?

 

[Aquatic]

The underlying issue is this: a human player has an intuitive game expectation that the strongest unit will defend, except when that unit is carrying cargo, in which case there is a risk factor and the human wants that unit to defend if it was going to win anyway, and to sit out the battle if it was not, as well as all cases in between. The only real way for the game to evaluate a risk factor is to use some sort of formula percentage, and I think that's where my suggestion comes in.

It looks as if a consensus may be on its way!

Just add in the distinction between stacked and unstacked strealth units mixed with non-steath units, so that unstacked stealth units remain hidden and do not enter the battle unless they have to face a unit that can see them, and perhaps we are nearly there.

The only thing I can see as possibly needing futher consideration would be to add a proviso that a stack of stealth units alone (i.e. not a stack of mixed units and so, crucially, with no transports) should always behave according to the stealth characteristic of its units.

 

[KMadCandy]

That is probably true, but I was trying to clear up any misunderstandings on Kmad's part, lest she go off and try to defend a stack of loaded aircraft carriers with triremes. Probably more important that we're all on the same page with regard to what the rules are, no?

triremes they can't even enter ocean silly! caravels are teh uber! nah, that was just me "voting", altho that's not really the right word, for the "things should stay the way they are now in this aspect" point of view. thank you tho, i would just about always rather someone explain something i do know, than assume i know something i don't!

I absolutely think that SDDs need to defend against air attacks on the stack, regardless of whether or not they're "seen" or "unseen". The other units in the stack are seen -- that's enough in my book.

i just wonder how in the world their stealth destroyers smart enough to know that my stealth bombers can't see them? Stealth isn't a tech you can pop from a hut, so surely the barbs would be panicking down there.

 

[Bhruic]

Just for the record, I'm away from home until the 19th. I won't be doing much, if any, work until I get back.

The stealth issue is one I did mean to fix, I just forgot about it. The proposed transport solution is interesting, although it's hard to predict how well it'll work in real game situations.

Bh

 

[SevenSpirits]

One idea I had was to simply muiltiply the strength of any loaded unit by the combat probability -- purely for determination of which unit defends. So, a convoy with empty caravels and a loaded galleon attacked by a frigate with 90% probability against the galleon would use str 3 for the caravels and str 4*.1 = str 0.4 for the galleon (ties go to the unloaded ship) so one of the caravels defends. Likewise, do the same for stealth ships. Let stealth defend, and if it happens to be loaded, simply multiply by the combat probability to determine if it is chosen as defender. Say a loaded stealth destroyer has 90% chance to win (10% chance to lose), then it's str for purpose of determining if it defends is, oh I don't remember what the base str is, say 40, so it would have 40*.9 = 36.0. Again, that's just to determine if it is chosen to defend. During the actual combat it would use its full strength of course.

Wodan

I like this idea a lot.

There is one situation where it's not perfect: Say I have a Caravel with an Explorer and a Galleon with three Cannons. They get attacked by a Missile Cruiser. With your suggestion, the Galleon will defend because it has higher strength * odds and they both have cargo.
You're not distinguishing between different quantities of cargo.

I would guess that strength * odds ^ (#cargo / 2) would work pretty well.

 

[jkp1187]

i just wonder how in the world their stealth destroyers smart enough to know that my stealth bombers can't see them? Stealth isn't a tech you can pop from a hut, so surely the barbs would be panicking down there.

must...stop...brain...from....exploding....