45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
Yep, this is even better!
Vokarya's Workshop: Units
- Thread starter Vokarya
- Start date
I have a couple thoughts about the Fusion Transport.
First, does Fusion Transport need Invisibility tech as well as Fusion? All of the Fusion ships require another technology in addition to Fusion. For Transport and Destroyer, it's Invisibility, which I am moving much higher on the tech tree. Fusion Transport has INVISIBLE_STEALTH, not true Invisibility, so it's really on the same level as Stealth Destroyer and Stiletto Boat. I feel that with Invisibility moving higher, you are forced to use Landing Ship Tank for the entire Modern and most of the Transhuman Era. I'd like to spread out the ships somewhat.
Second, should Fusion Transport be invisible at all? I think the big advantage to having an invisible transport is that it doesn't need to be escorted. But a lot of ships have <SeeInvisible> for stealth, so that's mitigated a lot. I think the paradigm of Civ is that transport ships need to be escorted, but I can see making this one invisible as the "capstone" of the transport ships.
Third, Fusion Transport doesn't have Can Only Defend. The modern transport ships have this. Stiletto Boat does not, but it's a specialist unit. I think FT should be Can Only Defend.
First, does Fusion Transport need Invisibility tech as well as Fusion? All of the Fusion ships require another technology in addition to Fusion. For Transport and Destroyer, it's Invisibility, which I am moving much higher on the tech tree. Fusion Transport has INVISIBLE_STEALTH, not true Invisibility, so it's really on the same level as Stealth Destroyer and Stiletto Boat. I feel that with Invisibility moving higher, you are forced to use Landing Ship Tank for the entire Modern and most of the Transhuman Era. I'd like to spread out the ships somewhat.
Second, should Fusion Transport be invisible at all? I think the big advantage to having an invisible transport is that it doesn't need to be escorted. But a lot of ships have <SeeInvisible> for stealth, so that's mitigated a lot. I think the paradigm of Civ is that transport ships need to be escorted, but I can see making this one invisible as the "capstone" of the transport ships.
Third, Fusion Transport doesn't have Can Only Defend. The modern transport ships have this. Stiletto Boat does not, but it's a specialist unit. I think FT should be Can Only Defend.
I compiled a few thoughts about Promotions as well.
1. Anti-Tank Defense. I don't think we should have this line of promotions in addition to the Ambush promotions. Both provide a bonus vs. Wheeled and Tracked units. Having two groups of promotions like this makes it too easy to produce a super-counter-unit. Anti-Tank Defense does provide a bonus against Dreadnought units, but I could easily add that to Ambush.
2. Shielding. This is supposed to be available to Helicopter units as well as Mecha. However, it requires Fusion Power Source, which is only available to Mecha.
3. Mecha promotions in general. We have a large group of promotions that are limited only to Mecha units. I think this is flavorful but not particularly effective. I would like to extend these to some of the later mechanical unit classes: Dreadnought, Helicopter, Nuclear Ship, and Submarine. These promotions have tech requirements as well, so we won't see them too early.
1. Anti-Tank Defense. I don't think we should have this line of promotions in addition to the Ambush promotions. Both provide a bonus vs. Wheeled and Tracked units. Having two groups of promotions like this makes it too easy to produce a super-counter-unit. Anti-Tank Defense does provide a bonus against Dreadnought units, but I could easily add that to Ambush.
2. Shielding. This is supposed to be available to Helicopter units as well as Mecha. However, it requires Fusion Power Source, which is only available to Mecha.
3. Mecha promotions in general. We have a large group of promotions that are limited only to Mecha units. I think this is flavorful but not particularly effective. I would like to extend these to some of the later mechanical unit classes: Dreadnought, Helicopter, Nuclear Ship, and Submarine. These promotions have tech requirements as well, so we won't see them too early.
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
Sounds good to me.
It was pointed out that Siege units do not have access to Arctic Combat and Desert Combat promotions. This means that you cannot build a desert-proof or tundra-proof army if you play with Terrain Damage. While the obvious thing to do would be to open up these promotions to Siege units, I don't want to do that for three reasons.
1. Arctic Combat I and Desert Combat I require Combat I as a prerequisite. I don't want to open up Combat promotions to Siege units. This was not done in BTS, so I don't want to do it here.
2. Arctic Combat I and Desert Combat I come with defense bonuses on the appropriate terrain. Units that have "Don't Receive Defensive Bonuses" do get these bonuses in the appropriate terrain type. The units that are left out of AC1/DC1 are the offensive units that I don't want having any kind of defensive bonus. For the sake of keeping all units useful, these units need defensive escorts in the field.
3. Arctic Combat I and Desert Combat I also double movement in the appropriate terrain. I really don't want fast Siege units. I think Siege units moving more than one tile per turn should be very limited before the Modern Era.
So instead, I would like to propose a pair of Weatherproof promotions for mechanical units. This would cover Siege, Wheeled, Tracked, Dreadnought, Helicopter, and Mecha units. (Mounted units still can't get immunity. It's supposed to be tough for them.)
For want of a better name, I'm calling them Weatherproof I and Weatherproof II, but they are not linked. (I'm not going to resort to dashes, and I absolutely despise parentheses.)
Each promotion grants immunity to one of the two damaging terrains types and a small bonus in healing. I think +5% per turn in neutral and enemy lands would be enough. I don't think friendly terrain needs a heal bonus.
1. Arctic Combat I and Desert Combat I require Combat I as a prerequisite. I don't want to open up Combat promotions to Siege units. This was not done in BTS, so I don't want to do it here.
2. Arctic Combat I and Desert Combat I come with defense bonuses on the appropriate terrain. Units that have "Don't Receive Defensive Bonuses" do get these bonuses in the appropriate terrain type. The units that are left out of AC1/DC1 are the offensive units that I don't want having any kind of defensive bonus. For the sake of keeping all units useful, these units need defensive escorts in the field.
3. Arctic Combat I and Desert Combat I also double movement in the appropriate terrain. I really don't want fast Siege units. I think Siege units moving more than one tile per turn should be very limited before the Modern Era.
So instead, I would like to propose a pair of Weatherproof promotions for mechanical units. This would cover Siege, Wheeled, Tracked, Dreadnought, Helicopter, and Mecha units. (Mounted units still can't get immunity. It's supposed to be tough for them.)
For want of a better name, I'm calling them Weatherproof I and Weatherproof II, but they are not linked. (I'm not going to resort to dashes, and I absolutely despise parentheses.)
Each promotion grants immunity to one of the two damaging terrains types and a small bonus in healing. I think +5% per turn in neutral and enemy lands would be enough. I don't think friendly terrain needs a heal bonus.
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
I don't know how it sounds in English since it's not my native language but what about Sunproof and Iceproof? I like the idea anyway!
IPEX-731BA5DD06
Deity
Actually, now I've thought about it, as I play with terrain damage on. Having siege etc not being able to gain the terrain proof promotions, seems a better idea.
They get damaged by sand in mechanisms, freeze the moving parts in Snow and Ice.
Having a medic unit in the stack is like doing maintenance.
I would vote to leave it as is.
I only originally posted the question, as I was surprised.
But saying that it wasn't in the original Civ 4, I'm satisfied.
I vote for NO change, thanks for your thoughts on the matter, but no change.
Too much work for little reward. If your really worried, don't play with Terrain damage.
Side note, March doesn't work on Ice, on Tundra yes, but Ice damages quicker the march heals.
Desert would be the same, but no 10 tile deserts to traverse.
They get damaged by sand in mechanisms, freeze the moving parts in Snow and Ice.
Having a medic unit in the stack is like doing maintenance.
I would vote to leave it as is.
I only originally posted the question, as I was surprised.
But saying that it wasn't in the original Civ 4, I'm satisfied.
I vote for NO change, thanks for your thoughts on the matter, but no change.
Too much work for little reward. If your really worried, don't play with Terrain damage.
Side note, March doesn't work on Ice, on Tundra yes, but Ice damages quicker the march heals.
Desert would be the same, but no 10 tile deserts to traverse.
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
Arctic Combat doesn't negate Ice Damage either; and I see a lot more Ice than I do Tundra in my games
I was looking at promotions and I noticed the Spy promotion Logistics II has a problem. Logistics II is supposed to allow -1 terrain movement cost and Can Use Enemy Roads. The problem lies in that, since BTS, the Spy unit (and therefore all units that upgrade from it) start with Commando, which also allows using enemy roads.
So while it's not completely useless, Logistics II is only valuable for that -1 terrain cost. Most espionage units don't ignore terrain costs. Special Agent, Top Secret Agent, and Nanite Spy ignore terrain costs, but the first two are limited and the last is very late-game.
Do you think Logistics II is worth keeping just for -1 terrain cost? It will affect any unit that does get it, because Logistics I is +1 movement range, so any unit will have at least 2 moves and can benefit. I think it is worth keeping, but I just thought I'd ask.
So while it's not completely useless, Logistics II is only valuable for that -1 terrain cost. Most espionage units don't ignore terrain costs. Special Agent, Top Secret Agent, and Nanite Spy ignore terrain costs, but the first two are limited and the last is very late-game.
Do you think Logistics II is worth keeping just for -1 terrain cost? It will affect any unit that does get it, because Logistics I is +1 movement range, so any unit will have at least 2 moves and can benefit. I think it is worth keeping, but I just thought I'd ask.
Never used it, having only -1 terrain move cost is not really needed as by the time I start using spies, there are either roads connecting to their destination or I ferry them by boat. And those spy exp points are better spent in other promos.
I doubt many people build these units, but I noticed that the Anti-Air Gun and Anti-Air Halftrack are way too close together. The AA Gun requires Automatic Weapons and the AA Halftrack requires Aviation. Both of these are in the Late Industrial era, which breaks the "one-third rule" that I use for placing units.
The next unit in the chain is the Mobile SAM, which requires Guided Weapons. GW falls into the Middle Modern Era, so that leaves an open space in the Early Modern Era. Furthermore, Aviation has a trick count of 7.5. It could easily give up one or two tricks.
What I am going to do is move the AA Halftrack to Aerodynamics. Then, to help it out a little, increase the AA Halftrack's Strength from 40 to 45, increase its intercept percentage against aircraft from 30% to 40%, and decrease SAM Infantry's intercept chance from 40% to 30%. SAM Infantry is still stronger (54 vs. 45) and better against Helicopters but slower (speed 1 vs. 2) and not quite as good against aircraft (30% intercept vs. 40%).
The next unit in the chain is the Mobile SAM, which requires Guided Weapons. GW falls into the Middle Modern Era, so that leaves an open space in the Early Modern Era. Furthermore, Aviation has a trick count of 7.5. It could easily give up one or two tricks.
What I am going to do is move the AA Halftrack to Aerodynamics. Then, to help it out a little, increase the AA Halftrack's Strength from 40 to 45, increase its intercept percentage against aircraft from 30% to 40%, and decrease SAM Infantry's intercept chance from 40% to 30%. SAM Infantry is still stronger (54 vs. 45) and better against Helicopters but slower (speed 1 vs. 2) and not quite as good against aircraft (30% intercept vs. 40%).
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
That sounds good, and the original AA Gun I almost never saw get used because it got replaced so quickly - so now it should hopefully get to see some use
Here's something I just have a question about. Do Evasion and Interception have any effect at all on ground-to-ground combat? From what I can tell, evasion and interception only work for air units and paradrops.
One of the things I am currently working on is a database of the promotions and their cumulative effects. I would like to redo the Mecha promotions, but I need a good baseline to work from. I noticed that Helicopter units get access to the Chaff promotion, which increases Evasion. I thought this was meaningless, but I realized that the Dropship unit (which is the last unit in the Helicopter chain) can also make paradrops, so it's not completely useless.
One of the things I am currently working on is a database of the promotions and their cumulative effects. I would like to redo the Mecha promotions, but I need a good baseline to work from. I noticed that Helicopter units get access to the Chaff promotion, which increases Evasion. I thought this was meaningless, but I realized that the Dropship unit (which is the last unit in the Helicopter chain) can also make paradrops, so it's not completely useless.
Here's something I twigged to as I was looking through the various unit art definitions. I am looking through all of them with intent to prune any that aren't being used. (I currently have 6 that aren't used, but may be able to salvage, and there may be more.)
There is a separate unit art definition style for the Hittite civilization. I compared it to the generic Middle East style, and I found that there are almost no differences between the two. The only current differences are that the Middle Eastern Light Cavalry is not used by the Hittite style (which is merely an oversight on my part) and that the Hittite style has a separate art definition for the Chariot.
This is actually not a good thing. The Hittite UU is a Chariot replacement, all UU's get their own art definitions, and the Hittite-style Chariot (non-UU version) is using the same art definition as the UU. I don't think it is a good idea to use the same art definition for both a regular unit and a UU. It is just possible with the Assimilation option and an early capture to mix both regular Chariots and Hittite Chariots, and I think that would be more confusing than valuable.
I think we should reassign the Hittite civilization to the Middle Eastern style and cut out the Hittite style completely.
There is a separate unit art definition style for the Hittite civilization. I compared it to the generic Middle East style, and I found that there are almost no differences between the two. The only current differences are that the Middle Eastern Light Cavalry is not used by the Hittite style (which is merely an oversight on my part) and that the Hittite style has a separate art definition for the Chariot.
This is actually not a good thing. The Hittite UU is a Chariot replacement, all UU's get their own art definitions, and the Hittite-style Chariot (non-UU version) is using the same art definition as the UU. I don't think it is a good idea to use the same art definition for both a regular unit and a UU. It is just possible with the Assimilation option and an early capture to mix both regular Chariots and Hittite Chariots, and I think that would be more confusing than valuable.
I think we should reassign the Hittite civilization to the Middle Eastern style and cut out the Hittite style completely.
Most civilizations actually have their own unit art style. Only a few styles are shared between civilizations, like the African style being used for Mali and Zulu. It tends to be the smaller civilizations that have to share styles; even the Netherlands gets its own style. When I was doing new units, I settled on a palette of six ethnicities: European, Asian, African, Middle Eastern, Indian, and Native American/South American.
The reason for my concern with art defintions is that there is a limit to how many art definitions there can be in a mod before it gets to be too much for the graphics engine. I had to add 12 definitions to handle giving the Guildmaster units separate buttons, because each unit using a new button needs a separate art definition (15 new definitions, but I was able to delete the original 3 definitions to save some stress). So if I can find ways to prune definitions that we aren't using, I will. If it comes down to it, I will sacrifice some of the one-civ unit arts.
IPEX-731BA5DD06
Deity
Also, wasn't the Hittite Civilisation, a modded civ all on its own.
I'm sure there's something in the documents of RAND, detailing this.
ACG Hittites readme.txt in Docs.
I'm sure there's something in the documents of RAND, detailing this.
ACG Hittites readme.txt in Docs.
Also, wasn't the Hittite Civilisation, a modded civ all on its own.
I'm sure there's something in the documents of RAND, detailing this.
ACG Hittites readme.txt in Docs.
This is also true. Hittites were a civilization in Civ3, which is probably why they got added to AND.
