V34 feedback

[Reisk@]

Been playing now about to space stations etc. tech and the mod is good, very good but with few big things to address. Pretty much all about size matters.

- Size matters is really good idea in principle and essential for managing huge amounts of units while bringing all new level into gameplay. Not only composition of units is can now be decided but also the numbers of different types of them. Although clumsy 3 to 1 and still needing work, it functions somewhat properly. Computer players haven't used it at all and can't quite cope with it so that is one issue. Edited, more realistic strengths for bigger units work fine.

- Second big issue is loading missiles and other units into mergeable ships. They "fall into the sea" and disappear when ship carrying them is merged or separated. Even is the ship is merged in city, not good. Also, the carrying capacity remains the same which is a big realism and common sense hit. One sub has same capacity for missiles as million put together, not good at all. Again, this one favors heavily and very unrealistically smaller unit sizes. Carrying capacity should naturally multiply in same pace with numbers of units but this is most likely coming yesno ?

- Third is also a big size matters realism issue. Millions of units put together can now avoid artillery totally as long as they are grouped to "one" and kept in their own tiles. This favors far too much the huge piles of units and makes artillery useless as the huge merged units slaughter them. Imagine a thousand rocket artilleries firing at one concentration of million men and not being able to hit one. Artillery not being able to hit the "first" unit is a ridiculous and unrealistic thing and if it can be removed, this could be solved or the artillery should be made able to hit single merged units another way.

- Some units still desperately need the merging option (flamethrowers and machine guns for example). Now they can be stomped too easily. All units should have the merging ability, as long as the capacity issue can be dealt with, carriers and planes too. There is also some problems when loading missile units into merged ships, wake up and space buttons have to be pressed few times before it succeeds, even when the units have not moved at that turn.

- One time strange bug with cogs trying to carry any units from city to city. As tried with great scientist, he boarded the cog and when cogs went to water, he got stuck in water and disappeared as cogs went on. As cogs got upgraded, the issue vanished. Many other cogs worked fine. Maybe those cogs were really unpleasant to travel on.

- Mod seems a bit more unstable and one continuous crash point was found. Luckily it was solved by reverting to save 20 turns earlier. Few random crashes, nothing serious.

Those are pretty much all seen in first game. Old And 1.75 and vanilla style culture system is really great and amount of building choices and means of effect very immersive. Despite the flaws above, it is really fun to play. It was really surprising and nice to see ai civ suddenly face me with my own very succesful tactic out of the blue. Never have i seen that in Civ IV. Very nice indeed, winner is not yet decided but it really seems that for the first time i lose to my own favourite tactic which is most excellent variety.

Are multiple maps of moon etc. already active or still under work ?

 

[Nimek]

Thanks for feedback.

Size letter is new option so it need to be polished.
Space part is still in progress.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Are multiple maps of moon etc. already active or still under work ?

I think I have a glimmer of understanding about how this may be accomplished but there are any things I don't know and at the moment I just am not getting the time to work on them.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Size matters is really good idea in principle and essential for managing huge amounts of units while bringing all new level into gameplay. Not only composition of units is can now be decided but also the numbers of different types of them. Although clumsy 3 to 1 and still needing work, it functions somewhat properly. Computer players haven't used it at all and can't quite cope with it so that is one issue. Edited, more realistic strengths for bigger units work fine.

What exact modifiers are you using? Did you understand the mathematical breakdown I gave in detail in the other thread? If you HAVE a solution for getting around the problems I bring up there I'd be interested to see it. To list those more simply:
1) All size matters categories must keep the same strength and hp modifiers by category rank so they may balance out each other.
2) It's too possible to create an integer overload if each category increment is a modifier of 200% of the previous one (or anywhere near this amount).

The AI currently will not use any size matters functions. By design, it should not be necessary for it to have to since both splitting and merging should be different strategies but equally valid when compared to doing neither. That said, once my 'fixit' list is complete I do intend to develop some size matters AI. This is probably a couple of months out.

Also, bear in mind that merging and splitting is not intended to simplify the management of units (so you can just pile them up into huge merged groups and have less units to manage) but to deepen battle strategy. At times, it should be better to have a merged unit while at other times better to have the three split off ones. The current modifiers achieve this goal. I'm still merging units more often than splitting them and finding it far more powerful though does take a LOT of production to build such forces.

Anyhow, I'm not asking to reopen argument or debate over that matter because we'll probably have to simply agree to disagree but I AM interested in seeing what you set your strength and hp modifiers to on each Unit Combat.

- Second big issue is loading missiles and other units into mergeable ships. They "fall into the sea" and disappear when ship carrying them is merged or separated. Even is the ship is merged in city, not good. Also, the carrying capacity remains the same which is a big realism and common sense hit. One sub has same capacity for missiles as million put together, not good at all. Again, this one favors heavily and very unrealistically smaller unit sizes. Carrying capacity should naturally multiply in same pace with numbers of units but this is most likely coming yesno ?

Yeah, I had attempted to keep some of this from being problematic by a weak attempt to keep any unit that could transport other units from being able to split or merge. At least until it could be further sorted out. Now that you say it, specifically mentioning missiles, it is clear that this would mean ALL naval units (and more) would need to not be able to split or merge so it's fairly important for me to get on this - it's on my fixit list now.

And yes, this means carrying capacity needs to be modified with merges and splits, and to make it so that units carrying other units may not merge or split while carrying. I know you will feel that's not the right way to go about it but what happens when you split units that are carrying units that are then too large to be carried by any of the three split off transports? Must they be split by default? I'd prefer not. Introduces too many 'ifs' into the code.

- Third is also a big size matters realism issue. Millions of units put together can now avoid artillery totally as long as they are grouped to "one" and kept in their own tiles. This favors far too much the huge piles of units and makes artillery useless as the huge merged units slaughter them. Imagine a thousand rocket artilleries firing at one concentration of million men and not being able to hit one. Artillery not being able to hit the "first" unit is a ridiculous and unrealistic thing and if it can be removed, this could be solved or the artillery should be made able to hit single merged units another way.

On this matter we have agreement. On my 'fixit' list (which is as much a 'development' as it is a 'fix') is the task to rework the way bombardment works in general - this isn't the only place the current mechanism fails to deliver a reasonable result. I'll of course be keeping size matters in mind further and will seek to be able to 'modify' bombardment based on size factors such that I can open up bombarding units to being able to merge/split as well. Because bombard and a few other items like it are primarily the realm of siege weapons, siege weapons cannot currently merge/split. Once bombardment is repaired and worked into something of a more rational mechanism then it can be done. Keep in mind too that 'bombard' means more than one thing... there's quite a few meanings, missions and game dynamics that carry this label actually.

One time strange bug with cogs trying to carry any units from city to city. As tried with great scientist, he boarded the cog and when cogs went to water, he got stuck in water and disappeared as cogs went on. As cogs got upgraded, the issue vanished. Many other cogs worked fine. Maybe those cogs were really unpleasant to travel on.

The first cog you had trouble with was probably in the game before the cargo mechanism adjustment. Shouldn't have any further trouble with that from here.

Mod seems a bit more unstable and one continuous crash point was found. Luckily it was solved by reverting to save 20 turns earlier. Few random crashes, nothing serious.

Repeatable CTDs like that should be reported to the bug thread with the savegame that reliably crashes.

 

[Reisk@]

What exact modifiers are you using? Did you understand the mathematical breakdown I gave in detail in the other thread?

About +175 str starting from battalion i think. Didn't see the calcula ala formula you mentioned but it seems to working fine. Will keep testing, viva la realism. No one really builds those trillions anyway, there is no point both strategically and financially. Rarely i have seen such unwillingness to understand realistic reason and logic done in games for decades just because of a code that couldn't or wouldn't.

No math still proves that 1+2=1,2. No matter how you beef it with other +gimmicks because of the code that couldn't.

1) All size matters categories must keep the same strength and hp modifiers by category rank so they may balance out each other.

Realism still does not unbalance anything.

The AI currently will not use any size matters functions. By design, it should not be necessary for it to have to since both splitting and merging should be different strategies but equally valid when compared to doing neither. That said, once my 'fixit' list is complete I do intend to develop some size matters AI. This is probably a couple of months out.

Ok

Also, bear in mind that merging and splitting is not intended to simplify the management of units (so you can just pile them up into huge merged groups and have less units to manage) but to deepen battle strategy.

Yeah... thats exactly what i mentioned above.

Anyhow, I'm not asking to reopen argument or debate over that matter because we'll probably have to simply agree to disagree but I AM interested in seeing what you set your strength and hp modifiers to on each Unit Combat.

Hp modifiers are the same as you mentioned that they are already tripled so thats fine. Str modifier is mentioned above.

Yeah, I had attempted to keep some of this from being problematic by a weak attempt to keep any unit that could transport other units from being able to split or merge. At least until it could be further sorted out. Now that you say it, specifically mentioning missiles, it is clear that this would mean ALL naval units (and more) would need to not be able to split or merge so it's fairly important for me to get on this - it's on my fixit list now.

And to the totally wrong way again, all because of a code that couldn't or wouldn't. A simple task of grouping units has been done in games for decades. Again, your solution is degradation.

And yes, this means carrying capacity needs to be modified with merges and splits

Definitely, as realism and common sense requires but not by denying these options from naval units. So now you suggest that if naval units can't merge, the little canoe/equivalent will be able to carry millions of merged soldiers ? Hello simple logic ! Where are you ?! Aw, just make system that bangs everything together and adds up the values. That works with artillery, ships and everything. This current system is crap if it can't add up the transporting capacity values with reason and i really don't see why it can't if it can add up other variables ?!?

and to make it so that units carrying other units may not merge or split while carrying. I know you will feel that's not the right way to go about it

It is excellent, simple and realistic thing that units can't split WHILE they are carrying too much to be splitted. Why on Earth would i not like such realism in thy mind ? Your logic is sometimes so very weird. I don't see why they couldn't merge though. Because of the code that wouldn't ?

but what happens when you split units that are carrying units that are then too large to be carried by any of the three split off transports? Must they be split by default? I'd prefer not. Introduces too many 'ifs' into the code.

Definitely nothing worse that what now happens when splitting/merging missile carrying naval units. Solution is to make the "you can't split now, you are carrying too much troops" - kind of simplistic switch plus the split/merge-buttons should be visible at all times but blackened when their actions are not possible of reasonable.

On this matter we have agreement. On my 'fixit' list (which is as much a 'development' as it is a 'fix') is the task to rework the way bombardment works in general - this isn't the only place the current mechanism fails to deliver a reasonable result. I'll of course be keeping size matters in mind further and will seek to be able to 'modify' bombardment based on size factors such that I can open up bombarding units to being able to merge/split as well. Because bombard and a few other items like it are primarily the realm of siege weapons, siege weapons cannot currently merge/split. Once bombardment is repaired and worked into something of a more rational mechanism then it can be done. Keep in mind too that 'bombard' means more than one thing... there's quite a few meanings, missions and game dynamics that carry this label actually.

Good for you. This definitely isn't only gromp in sm-code. Everything should be able to simply merge and add up their numbers in a realistic and reasonable way. Beautiful simplicity archieved in little C64 games decades ago.

The first cog you had trouble with was probably in the game before the cargo mechanism adjustment. Shouldn't have any further trouble with that from here.

No idea what you mean, V34. Happened one time with one cog group among many.

Repeatable CTDs like that should be reported to the bug thread with the savegame that reliably crashes.

Oh, there must be plenty of those already and the save long gone. Those errors are easy to dodge by means mentioned above but i won't be sad if they disappear from game.

How much simpler and more versatile size matters would be if you just made it to bang the units together and add up the values ? As you think about it, consider all the problems of realism, logic and common sense that you are dealing with it now.

 

[Faustmouse]

*sigh*
TB brings brilliant arguments with advanced math and you stick to your elementary school 1*3=3 logic...
Just because your army is larger does not mean they are THAT more stronger. You like realism arguments, so here you go:

- Ever seen a large battle in the renaissance? Do all the Musket Man shoot at once? No, only the first two rows. So no matter how large your army is (above a certain size), they don't have more fire power (since they can't form infinitice long rows). If all, just more health.

- Same is true for Melee units, the swordmen in the last row will probably never even see the enemy. So why should he add Str to the group?

- Archer: They only have a very limited range. So again, the last rows can't attack.

- Wheeled / Tracked /Helicopter units: A LOT of friendly fire if armies get to big.

- It HAS the be kept in balance with size and combat quality. Think small: Who would win? A Group of Elephants or a one more often merged group of Swordman? In TB's way, they both are equally strong: Same base Str while the Swordman would get 20% for their larger group and the Elepahnts for their size. So to speak, it would be 3 Swordmen against 1 Elephant. Good luck on this... But in your system, the Swordmen would get 175% (I think), makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the Elephants to win. Not very realistic.

- Combat quality is also very important, ever seen 300? What was the Persian armies base str then at this size?

 

[Nimek]

ever seen 300? What was the Persian armies base str then at this size?

This is epic example or more modern example from my country history
Battle of Wizna (40 000 Germans vs 720 Poles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna

 

[Reisk@]

*sigh*
TB brings brilliant arguments with advanced math and you stick to your elementary school 1*3=3 logic...
Just because your army is larger does not mean they are THAT more stronger. You like realism arguments, so here you go:

- Ever seen a large battle in the renaissance? Do all the Musket Man shoot at once? No, only the first two rows. So no matter how large your army is (above a certain size), they don't have more fire power (since they can't form infinitice long rows). If all, just more health.

- Same is true for Melee units, the swordmen in the last row will probably never even see the enemy. So why should he add Str to the group?

- Archer: They only have a very limited range. So again, the last rows can't attack.

- Wheeled / Tracked /Helicopter units: A LOT of friendly fire if armies get to big.

- It HAS the be kept in balance with size and combat quality. Think small: Who would win? A Group of Elephants or a one more often merged group of Swordman? In TB's way, they both are equally strong: Same base Str while the Swordman would get 20% for their larger group and the Elepahnts for their size. So to speak, it would be 3 Swordmen against 1 Elephant. Good luck on this... But in your system, the Swordmen would get 175% (I think), makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the Elephants to win. Not very realistic.

- Combat quality is also very important, ever seen 300? What was the Persian armies base str then at this size?

Adding three same sized units together makes the new unit roughly three times more powerful. Common sense. Fact. Period. Thats why this measure of counting is and has been used in games throughout the decades.

300 was a total waste of celluloid, plain crap of a movie from a very good subject. Moreover, your 300-comment does not even relate to str issue but the combat quality and battle terrain factors. Str and combat quality are different variables in game so thus it is a totally pointless comment, not relating to combining units at all. Why make such ridiculous, totally out of context-comments ??

Ton of those have already been spewed from the fanatic defenders of this currently very broken, unrealistic and ridiculous grouping system which games back in 80s already did better.

Don't bother to make anymore "mathematic" or "realistic" arguments why 1+2 is 1.2. They are as good as 300-turd and all because of a code that couldn't deliver realistic str modifiers. Still, it is weird to see such blind eyed and fanatic defence for something which clearly is unrealistic and ridiculous.

It is great that there is all kinds of is it a mammal or a lizard-variables in game, only this combining of forces and it's ramifications are very broken. Now there is no reason to upgrade modern infantry to exoskeletons for example, broken and this system is in desperate need to real realistic fixing if anything.

Clan-sized mod inf with a str of 300 changes to forces-sized exoskeleton inf when upgraded and takes a str hit even when exoskeletons are more powerful than mod inf. There is something really wrong and unbalanced in this system when a unit of 2,5K-10K men suddenly changes to 600-2,5K men unit and suffers a str hit.

Hopefully there will be no "arguments" why modern inf should be more powerful than exoskeletons because something vaguely similar happened in some garbage movie. Such system where upgrading gives one a weaker units you repeatedly call balanced with capital letters for some strange reason.

Balanced ?

A mechanic that makes upgraded units weaker and fewer in numbers is balanced ? System stating that million subs grouped together have same missile capacity than 1 is balanced ? A code that allows billions of men grouped together become immediately immune to all artillery fire is balanced ?

I think you really should look honestly into mirror with such balanced-comments.


Size matters is a great idea but in current state hopelessly broken in some occasions and totally unrealistic in some variables. I definitely don't recommend using it to anyone in it's current state.

 

[Faustmouse]

Ok you clearly still haven't got anything.

300 was not only a movie, it was based on a historic battle. Thought this was general knowledge. And yet, it IS relatd to the topic since it clearly shows that combat quality is as important as group size.

Since that are the only arguments you can actually understand:
Adding three same sized units together makes the new unit NOT roughly three times more powerful. Common sense. Fact. Period.
No need to bring in more arguments since I a) did and b) you just can't understand them / ignore them. That's not a level any discussion is usefull.

If the 80's had such code, it shouldn't be too hard, so why don't you try it yourself and make a mod mod?

And the system has indeed some flaws like the missile capacity and such, but that was not what i meant when i say balanced (as everybody else would've clearly seen). Just talking about the Combat Quality, Group Size and Size thingy.

Thougt you got at least a little insight but I was just wrong. Makes no sense to argue with you.

 

[Reisk@]

300 was not only a movie, it was based on a historic battle. Thought this was general knowledge. And yet, it IS relatd to the topic since it clearly shows that combat quality is as important as group size.

So you should give spartan units a huge str bonus in a game ? Ridiculous trolling from you. 300 has absolutely nothing to do with a str modifier of Civ IV and you know it.

Adding three same sized units together makes the new unit NOT roughly three times more powerful. Common sense. Fact. Period.

Of course it makes the new unit roughly 3 times more powerful when facing a three times smaller unit on equal grounds. Why so childish and persistent trolling ?

No need to bring in more arguments

Since you have none. Your totally blind defence of a clearly broken system is beyond ridiculous.

If the 80's had such code, it shouldn't be too hard, so why don't you try it yourself and make a mod mod?

I don't make mods. I play some of them and if they are faulty, i let the makers know. You should be happy of free feedback and not wallow in a blindness of your ego. Real question is why don't you make your merging apparatuses reasonable and balanced. When you are notified of it's faults and bugs with actual examples and rationale, you throw a trolling tantrum like a child. I assume you are not one but how childish it is to raise a str level issue to level of making entire mods ? Just go and see, units have been succesfully and far more realistically combined, merged and separated from the 80s. Just copy those systems and build the richness of C2C around them, or you can cry me a river from your unreal realm without any avail. Your call.

What is dead sure though is that i will not start to repair your illogical systems. I can't always apt not to use them.

And the system has indeed some flaws like the missile capacity and such, but that was not what i meant when i say balanced (as everybody else would've clearly seen). Just talking about the Combat Quality, Group Size and Size thingy.

Why do you admittedly write about combat qualities and group sizes then, thrilled by a crappy movie when it is the plain str modifier that is in question ?? Plain str in equal grounds. You finally get it ? If you do, you also get how far fetched the 300-comment was, unless you want to claim that in the movie, two sides fought on equal grounds.

You claimed the system as balanced which it is not as now you have finally admitted between the lines. That took long. I guess you didn't mean the broken upgrading system or artillery invulnerability either but hey, it is still balanced right ? Especially if one does not want to count the faults.

By now, you must see how ridiculous your stand is. Only question is if you are still able to admit this to yourself.

Thougt you got at least a little insight but I was just wrong. Makes no sense to argue with you.

You can't argue with facts from real life and grade school math, especially with justifications totally out of context.


I hope that size matters gets fixed, preferably totally remade as a reasonable and realistic system that allows merging of any numbers while taking all their properties and abilities properly into account but now it is totally broken and unusable. According to Tb though, he is going to make it even worse and drop the merging of all naval transports for example. I guess he wants to ship those millions of merged soldiers with a single transport again. Million merged soldiers that lose strength when upgraded but hey, put them all into one and arty can't touch them.

I can't see how can any serious Civ player would want to use this kind of system in it's current brokenness and depravity. Oh well, back to a great mod without a la la landian size matters.

 

[GiuseppeIII]

After reading (parts of) this what I think might need to happen is a terrain modifier which says how much of a bonus a bigger army gets. Also the ability for a great general to impact this because they would help in morale/better strategic planning.

 

[Mr.Misfit]

Am I missing something or is the Encyclopedia bugged? Whenever I get to building it, the game seems to either crash or the project is abandoned though no one in the game has built it. And if it is abandoned it vanishes from the game alltogether and I get several thousand gold pieces though I really want to build the Encyclopedia?!

 

[strategyonly]

Am I missing something or is the Encyclopedia bugged? Whenever I get to building it, the game seems to either crash or the project is abandoned though no one in the game has built it. And if it is abandoned it vanishes from the game alltogether and I get several thousand gold pieces though I really want to build the Encyclopedia?!

Works fine, at least the last time i ever got it, but that was like 20 games ago. AI get there faster than I.

Alot of people out there saying they get a crash, but i dont see any crash reporting in the thread there??

 

[datachild]

Since that are the only arguments you can actually understand:
Adding three same sized units together makes the new unit NOT roughly three times more powerful. Common sense. Fact. Period.

I think you're both right in a way. Three people with any weapon are roughly three times more powerful than a single person with the same weapon and comparable skills. However this is not true for increasing number, depending on the weapon and terrain. Especially really large numbers can pose a serious logistic problem even given optimal terrain. You could say there is a front width for every unit after which greater numbers can't give any more benefits other than health.
E.g. A melee unit has a front of 3, meaning it has the full benefit for fighting against foes with only 1/3 of the groups size. A larger group gives no or greatly reduced additional benefits. There may be some dependencies on the size, e.g. even 5-10 fighters can fight effectively against a large enemy like an elephant. Other weapons could give larger front width.
The current system is somewhat inaccurate for melee skirmishes with small groups and reasonable accurate for "real" battles until the 19th century given the respective size. For current an future battles I'm not sure.

 

[Reisk@]

After reading (parts of) this what I think might need to happen is a terrain modifier which says how much of a bonus a bigger army gets. Also the ability for a great general to impact this because they would help in morale/better strategic planning.

Those would be nice additions but they certainly do not solve the basic, huge flaws of size matters.

 

[Reisk@]

Three people with any weapon are roughly three times more powerful than a single person with the same weapon and comparable skills. However this is not true for increasing number, depending on the weapon and terrain

Question is about a three of even nine times bigger merged unit then a single fighting on equal terrain.

But size matters is totally unusable anyway because of upgrading, arty invulnerability, and major transport capacity glitches for example. No one should use it in its current form unless they want to ruin their game.

Just another prime example of too much rushed into the mod without testing, by size and number of these atrocities, the testing seems to have been totally neglected. This clearly is the biggest problem of this great mod. Too much too fast with too little testing and thinking ahead.

For current an future battles I'm not sure.

Yeah, it was really fun to pay the upgrade of clan-sized modern infantry and see it becoming a smaller forces-sized exoskeleton infantry and taking a strength hit. Never upgraded into a weaker unit before in Civ, always something new...

 

[xartah]

Why is realism such an important factor? The combat model of civ4 is extremely abstract and trying to argue for realism over gameplay is silly in my opinion. Making each increase in size give a +175% bonus just removes choice from the game since it becomes the only correct action since going from 50% chance of winning to 98% is quite an increase.

 

[meatball20]

I don't know about v34 yet, but in v33 the game keeps freezing after moving a unit then the units and cities no longer are available and the turn stays the same value.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

If this happens in a repeatable way, you need to post a save with how to cause it on the bug thread. If you have just attacked with the unit there is a known bug that clicking anywhere on the mini map "fixes".

 

[Rwn]

I've found that medieval era seems a bit short in terms of tech compared to the others.

Given the popular view of this era as "dark times where few technological progress were made" (though this wasn't really true), may I suggest to keep the same techs in the ere, but significantly raise their cost ? (like x2 or x3 minimum)

This would give a specific "tech stagnation" feel to the era, while increasing its duration so we have time to play with all those castles and siege units