Ahriman
Tyrant
Have you updated to BTS 3.17?
[BTS] Warhammer FB Conversion Beta - Download/Debug Thread
- Thread starter Ploeperpengel
- Start date
Awesome mod! practically a new game...
i'm however having a pretty major problem which i hope is fixable.
at turn three right after you get the message about "welcome to warhammer fantasy battles, as this is a mod it will require some hardcore testing" .. my game crashes.
Are you trying to play the scenarios ? I have the same problem, but only with the scenarios, generated maps work just fine.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Bug:
Civilised factions don't seem to be researching Roads tech, which is a huge problem; it means they don't link up resources or get trade routes, so just have tiny cities with no decent units and no tech. Check tihs save; no-one (except me) seems to have Roads tech researched by turn 220. Needless to say, this cripples the AI.
AI worker construction is also still generally poor. This save isn't quite a fair guide to this, since I pillaged all the Empire's stuff for $$$, and I just
I also just conqured the Ind, and they hadn't developed bronze working, so were still forest-locked. I just spent some time pillaging their forts; all they'd built was forts all through their forests.
You need to program most of the AIs to bee-line for Crafting for cottages, and bronze working for forest-chop.
Finally, playing with Dark Elves is a joke even on Emperor difficulty . By turn 220 on normal speed, I have 3-4 archmages, half a dozen mages and total dominance.
I suggest increasing the cost of Aspirants (and Minstrels for Wood Elves) so that you can't just spam a ton of them in the early game and then have them gain Xp very rapidly.
Civilised factions don't seem to be researching Roads tech, which is a huge problem; it means they don't link up resources or get trade routes, so just have tiny cities with no decent units and no tech. Check tihs save; no-one (except me) seems to have Roads tech researched by turn 220. Needless to say, this cripples the AI.
AI worker construction is also still generally poor. This save isn't quite a fair guide to this, since I pillaged all the Empire's stuff for $$$, and I just
I also just conqured the Ind, and they hadn't developed bronze working, so were still forest-locked. I just spent some time pillaging their forts; all they'd built was forts all through their forests.
You need to program most of the AIs to bee-line for Crafting for cottages, and bronze working for forest-chop.
Finally, playing with Dark Elves is a joke even on Emperor difficulty . By turn 220 on normal speed, I have 3-4 archmages, half a dozen mages and total dominance.
I suggest increasing the cost of Aspirants (and Minstrels for Wood Elves) so that you can't just spam a ton of them in the early game and then have them gain Xp very rapidly.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
a little update:
Ploep just contacted me saying RL is getting pretty intense for him so hes taking a break from modding for a few weeks. that means that im going to try up my mod modding (which is still non-existant) and im going to try fix the issues you post in here as well. so id like to take a vote, what do you guys want me to work on first? i have a long list and id be pretty happy to work on anything, i just need to decide on an order.
so ill work on whatever you guys think is most pressing. however, i too have RL, work uni and a girlfriend, so my free time is pretty scarce at the moment.
Ploep just contacted me saying RL is getting pretty intense for him so hes taking a break from modding for a few weeks. that means that im going to try up my mod modding (which is still non-existant) and im going to try fix the issues you post in here as well. so id like to take a vote, what do you guys want me to work on first? i have a long list and id be pretty happy to work on anything, i just need to decide on an order.
so ill work on whatever you guys think is most pressing. however, i too have RL, work uni and a girlfriend, so my free time is pretty scarce at the moment.
Greeneyedzombie
King
Could you update the WH worldmap, so its playebell with this version of the mod?
Other then that, you could post the list and make a poll wich one to work first.
Other then that, you could post the list and make a poll wich one to work first.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I would suggest some key priorities in order (not sure which you're up for):
1. Try to fix some of the annoying bugs (AIs not researching roads, spamming watchtowers and vulnerability to forestlock, castles/citadels seeming to not work).
2. Add Elemental Magic.
3. Rebalancing. Rebalance the civics. Make the recon line units useful. Change Wonder costs/effects/requirements. Simple religion changes; remove ability to build nonstate temples, and modify the temple effects for different religions.
4. Try to distinguish some of the factions a bit more, with stronger and weaker versions for different units.
5. Modify the Warhammer map in such a way that all factions have reasonable start positions and expansion areas (in particular make feasible start areas and growth zones for Kurgans, Norsca, Orcs, Goblins etc. to be able to get some real power). Change their starting techs so that all factions start with a few key techs, in particular so that they can upgrade their local resources quickly or chop their way out of forests if necessary.
6. Continue to flesh out the factions, adding new units as art exists. I'm happy to help with design/balance for this.
7. Religion-specific units and heroes.
1. Try to fix some of the annoying bugs (AIs not researching roads, spamming watchtowers and vulnerability to forestlock, castles/citadels seeming to not work).
2. Add Elemental Magic.
3. Rebalancing. Rebalance the civics. Make the recon line units useful. Change Wonder costs/effects/requirements. Simple religion changes; remove ability to build nonstate temples, and modify the temple effects for different religions.
4. Try to distinguish some of the factions a bit more, with stronger and weaker versions for different units.
5. Modify the Warhammer map in such a way that all factions have reasonable start positions and expansion areas (in particular make feasible start areas and growth zones for Kurgans, Norsca, Orcs, Goblins etc. to be able to get some real power). Change their starting techs so that all factions start with a few key techs, in particular so that they can upgrade their local resources quickly or chop their way out of forests if necessary.
6. Continue to flesh out the factions, adding new units as art exists. I'm happy to help with design/balance for this.
7. Religion-specific units and heroes.
For my part, I would say that top priority is to make the game "interesting", so redesigning AI is a big TODO. So :
1. Same as Ahriman's #1.Try to fix some of the annoying bugs (AIs not researching roads, spamming watchtowers and vulnerability to forestlock, castles/citadels seeming to not work).
2. Make all factions "interesting" and playable. This includes giving the dwarves a way to create 'hills' if needed (even if it is VERY costly, like 100 turns of worker's action, and creates a 'fake' hill, only allowing a dwarf city to be built on it), giving the slanns spellcasters, and so on (I'm sure there are other races in need of a fix).
3. Add missing Magic. And, please, write at least a short description of what a spell does, even if it's "unsuitable" for a release, just add a big "TODO" in the text, but give a hint about it's usage !
4. Fixing some "description" bugs (like for halberders, which I suspect to be unique unit for the Empire, but which do NOT say so in the pedia)
5. Just like Ahriman's #5 : Even up the chances a bit on the Warhammer Map.
6. A bit like Ahriman's #6 : Add new units to the factions, but please do not wait for art to be ready !. What I mean is gameplay is much more important than graphics (even though good graphics mean a much better game experience). But adding units to balance the game and fill in the gaps, even if they use the design of mechanized infantry, or marines (as a temporary measure, of course), is more important.
I, however, disagree with Ahriman's #3 : The Recon line units are useful as they are, even without being a match, military-wise. Their, well, recon value is ok (I'm thinking of the "Bird Carrier" or "Beast Tamer" abilities, mostly). And you should be able to build temples for any religion, except if your "religion" civics aren't compatible with that (organized religion, religious fanaticism, etc...). As for the temple's effects, differenciating them slightly could be interesting, but doesn't seem like a big priority.
1. Same as Ahriman's #1.Try to fix some of the annoying bugs (AIs not researching roads, spamming watchtowers and vulnerability to forestlock, castles/citadels seeming to not work).
2. Make all factions "interesting" and playable. This includes giving the dwarves a way to create 'hills' if needed (even if it is VERY costly, like 100 turns of worker's action, and creates a 'fake' hill, only allowing a dwarf city to be built on it), giving the slanns spellcasters, and so on (I'm sure there are other races in need of a fix).
3. Add missing Magic. And, please, write at least a short description of what a spell does, even if it's "unsuitable" for a release, just add a big "TODO" in the text, but give a hint about it's usage !
4. Fixing some "description" bugs (like for halberders, which I suspect to be unique unit for the Empire, but which do NOT say so in the pedia)
5. Just like Ahriman's #5 : Even up the chances a bit on the Warhammer Map.
6. A bit like Ahriman's #6 : Add new units to the factions, but please do not wait for art to be ready !. What I mean is gameplay is much more important than graphics (even though good graphics mean a much better game experience). But adding units to balance the game and fill in the gaps, even if they use the design of mechanized infantry, or marines (as a temporary measure, of course), is more important.
I, however, disagree with Ahriman's #3 : The Recon line units are useful as they are, even without being a match, military-wise. Their, well, recon value is ok (I'm thinking of the "Bird Carrier" or "Beast Tamer" abilities, mostly). And you should be able to build temples for any religion, except if your "religion" civics aren't compatible with that (organized religion, religious fanaticism, etc...). As for the temple's effects, differenciating them slightly could be interesting, but doesn't seem like a big priority.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
No offense, but I'm quite sure they have all this well-planned out. And I think your points/objections have already been considered.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
actually RLAF i asked what people thought so im greatful for the input, Ahriman and kzwix in particular, thats for those points 
Well ill definately take a look at all the bugs posted in here and see if i can fix them, forest lock is one that im not too sure about and wouldrequire some magscript changes. i personally use FfHs creation mapscript, and also perfectworld, as neither of thsoe suffer forest lock. ill post links to these map scripts in the maps thread.
after that ill do the elemental magics, to ease myself back into modding, im used to that so it should be a good way of getting back into the swing of things. then ill work on spicing up the different civs, UUs special effects etc. i think that is enough to keep me occupied for a while
thanks guys
Well ill definately take a look at all the bugs posted in here and see if i can fix them, forest lock is one that im not too sure about and wouldrequire some magscript changes. i personally use FfHs creation mapscript, and also perfectworld, as neither of thsoe suffer forest lock. ill post links to these map scripts in the maps thread.
after that ill do the elemental magics, to ease myself back into modding, im used to that so it should be a good way of getting back into the swing of things. then ill work on spicing up the different civs, UUs special effects etc. i think that is enough to keep me occupied for a while
thanks guys
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
Oh, ok. You wanted input. Well, then I apologize, guys. Sorry, it was late and I was too lazy to scroll up I guess. (I spend too many damn nights up late.) Anyway, sorry, I was out of line.
Ahriman
Tyrant
+1 !!!!
This would add a huge amount of utility, particularly for casual players trying the mod. Its really annoying to often have to look up the spell *and* the promotion it gives in order to understand what a particular spell does.
Possible partial solution for forestlock is to change the tech requirement for forestchop. This is basically a FFH problem that is recreated here; bronzeworking comes too late for many civs. Worse in some ways here because of how expensive the Mining tech is.
Try bringing it back a tech, or giving two different techs, both of which can allow forests to be chopped.
I would like to see the recon units as actually useful combat units though, not just bird carriers. As it is bird ranges are long enough that I can use them out of my cities or those of people I have open borders with without ever needing to base them on a recon unit (especially with peaks around..... recon the hawk onto a peak, you get a *huge* view range). Some possibilities; give them +50% vs beast units, and maybe give them invisibility within friendly territory.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
oh yeh, spell pedia entries ill make a priority, i started playing again after a big break and even *i* forgot what half of them do and i was confused with them... and i MADE them all O_o
i was actually thinking of allowing forest chopping from the start, but make it take much longer to chop and grant no hammers (or at least a VERY small ammount) untill a certain tech is researched. (obviously some civs like WE and BEastmen would never be able to chop)
i do intend on making recon units a major counter for beast units like dragons hydras etc. and of course mages (think assassins) so recon will be very valuable to an army.
i was actually thinking of allowing forest chopping from the start, but make it take much longer to chop and grant no hammers (or at least a VERY small ammount) untill a certain tech is researched. (obviously some civs like WE and BEastmen would never be able to chop)
i do intend on making recon units a major counter for beast units like dragons hydras etc. and of course mages (think assassins) so recon will be very valuable to an army.
FenrirWolf
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22
Not sure if vote over but pretty much agree with Ahriman and Kzwix. Especially agree with Kzwix about recon units. Strider was a powerful warrior but he only went up against large armies when he had a large army behind him, otherwise he stuck to scouting and fighting other recon units. Their purpose is to move fast and report back about enemy movements, not to hold down positions (at least not if you want them to survive they don't).
Was going to suggest leaving elemental magic till later but if you're good at that anyway then go for it.
Also agree with Ahriman versus Kzwix about not allowing non-state religion buildings. There's no temples to either the old one's or Chaos in Altdorf (at least, no open ones) and any Old One or Salvation temples in the Chaos Wastes are burnt out ruins.
Also good luck to Ploep in dealings with the RL, may the dice roll his way and his critical hits be saves.
Was going to suggest leaving elemental magic till later but if you're good at that anyway then go for it.
Also agree with Ahriman versus Kzwix about not allowing non-state religion buildings. There's no temples to either the old one's or Chaos in Altdorf (at least, no open ones) and any Old One or Salvation temples in the Chaos Wastes are burnt out ruins.
Also good luck to Ploep in dealings with the RL, may the dice roll his way and his critical hits be saves.
Ahriman
Tyrant
The problem with making recon line units just perform reconnaissance functions is that reconnaissance isn't really a very valuable tool in Civ. Raw strength and movement are everything. Given the winner-take-all aspect to combat (winning units can heal back to full strength at no cost, losing units are gone forever), weaker units that can't win battles often have no purpose.
You can get all the recon value you need with hawks in your cities, its not ever worth building the recon line units.
And as for moving, seeing stuff and withdrawing or a mobile rapid response force, cavalry are better at that because they have more movement points.
Recon units are implemented pretty well in FFH; they are good at fighting field battles but weak in cities (though arguably they should have a cities penalty rather than just city attack penalty), and they don't need metals to be powerful. They are a separate research line that can be worth pursuing separate from the metals.
They don't need to have the same unit strength as mainline combat units (though they shouldn't be much less, or they can never win battles) but they have to have *something* useful to make them worthwhile.
Thats part of why I like the idea of invisibility in home terrain, so they can launch ambushes; makes them useful even without being as strong as normal units. And give them high offence/low defence (you can't use them as city defenders, unlike in FFH).
You could also give them reduced tile movement costs, or have them start with forest/jungle/hills terrain bonuses.
Big withdrawal chances would also simulate skirmish tactics.
Or you could create something like the rock/paper/scissors of the Total Realism mod, where all units have strength bonuses/penalties vs other types of units.
If you want them for reconnaissance purposes, at least let them start with sentry 1 and maybe sentry 2.
But they definitely need *something*. They're useless at the moment.
And I'd prefer that the recon line techs be a feasible alternative to just going bronze working/ironworking/feudalism every game. Boring.
Recon-line units needn't just represent scout units; they represent irregular units of all types, and those with better terrain adaption.
You can get all the recon value you need with hawks in your cities, its not ever worth building the recon line units.
And as for moving, seeing stuff and withdrawing or a mobile rapid response force, cavalry are better at that because they have more movement points.
Recon units are implemented pretty well in FFH; they are good at fighting field battles but weak in cities (though arguably they should have a cities penalty rather than just city attack penalty), and they don't need metals to be powerful. They are a separate research line that can be worth pursuing separate from the metals.
They don't need to have the same unit strength as mainline combat units (though they shouldn't be much less, or they can never win battles) but they have to have *something* useful to make them worthwhile.
Thats part of why I like the idea of invisibility in home terrain, so they can launch ambushes; makes them useful even without being as strong as normal units. And give them high offence/low defence (you can't use them as city defenders, unlike in FFH).
You could also give them reduced tile movement costs, or have them start with forest/jungle/hills terrain bonuses.
Big withdrawal chances would also simulate skirmish tactics.
Or you could create something like the rock/paper/scissors of the Total Realism mod, where all units have strength bonuses/penalties vs other types of units.
If you want them for reconnaissance purposes, at least let them start with sentry 1 and maybe sentry 2.
But they definitely need *something*. They're useless at the moment.
And I'd prefer that the recon line techs be a feasible alternative to just going bronze working/ironworking/feudalism every game. Boring.
Recon-line units needn't just represent scout units; they represent irregular units of all types, and those with better terrain adaption.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
Tho, I agree with Ahriman, I wouldn't go as far as he did. I hardly think recon units are useless. I've used recon units in combat situations before and will prolly do so again. So, I find a use for em, man.
I think recon line needs some strengthenin. But I'd argue that recon units should be more of the type of unit that harasses and harries the enemy, much like assassins and shadows do in FfH. They should be strengthened by bronze, iron, and meteoric iron but shouldn't rely on those. Imho, recon units are like guerrilla units (much like the old guerrilla unit and the Fanatic in CivII: Test of Time). They should tho have a high withdrawal rate to facilitate the whole idea of hit and run.
I think recon line needs some strengthenin. But I'd argue that recon units should be more of the type of unit that harasses and harries the enemy, much like assassins and shadows do in FfH. They should be strengthened by bronze, iron, and meteoric iron but shouldn't rely on those. Imho, recon units are like guerrilla units (much like the old guerrilla unit and the Fanatic in CivII: Test of Time). They should tho have a high withdrawal rate to facilitate the whole idea of hit and run.
FenrirWolf
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22
Ahriman's right, I was wrong.
I was thinking in small and large scale battles, not the epic sweep of the ages of Civ.
I like the idea of their having high offense but low defense (mayve no defensive bonuse like cavalry units?) so they can fight battles but don't just become another form of heavy infantry holding territory.
Also to be recon they should be able to actually recon, if they get bonuses for moving in forests, hills and jungles then their cost should go up but it could still be worth it (like skirmishers?)
Regarding the earliar posts about temples to other religions, its already set in the civilizations xml files that different civs are barred from making cetain shrines (for starting said religions). So barring which religions temples are allowed in cities wouldn't be complicated (you can still have chaos worshippers in Altdorf and this causing unhappiness, just the government won't allow open shrine building). Dwarfs won't tolerate open worship of Elven Gods and Elves won't worship the Old One's or Destruction and of course Chaos is devoted to Chaos, not to Destruction per se.
Main problems seems to me is
1)Salvation versus Spirituality (not sure what difference is meant to be so not sure why Altdorf wouldn't allow either, mod designers would have to decide that one).
2) Which civilizations are allowed to go in different ways (my wife's Indian so I know that some of their gods are practically chaos gods (e.g. Kali [who's largely unknown in Southern India]), others considered good like to steal girls clothes while their bathing (Slaanesh or Amoral Neutrality) and so logically they'd also be able to go for order (Salvation/Spirituality). Can't really see India being agnostic, not with the state of the roads.
With the above I think the main difficulty is deciding what to do, then you can just copy and paste
<Building>
<BuildingClassType>BUILDINGCLASS_Pick a temple</BuildingClassType>
<BuildingType>NONE</BuildingType>
</Building>
into relevant civs.
Apologies that I'm not really discussing bugs here, just responding to above suggestions.
I was thinking in small and large scale battles, not the epic sweep of the ages of Civ.
I like the idea of their having high offense but low defense (mayve no defensive bonuse like cavalry units?) so they can fight battles but don't just become another form of heavy infantry holding territory.
Also to be recon they should be able to actually recon, if they get bonuses for moving in forests, hills and jungles then their cost should go up but it could still be worth it (like skirmishers?)
Regarding the earliar posts about temples to other religions, its already set in the civilizations xml files that different civs are barred from making cetain shrines (for starting said religions). So barring which religions temples are allowed in cities wouldn't be complicated (you can still have chaos worshippers in Altdorf and this causing unhappiness, just the government won't allow open shrine building). Dwarfs won't tolerate open worship of Elven Gods and Elves won't worship the Old One's or Destruction and of course Chaos is devoted to Chaos, not to Destruction per se.
Main problems seems to me is
1)Salvation versus Spirituality (not sure what difference is meant to be so not sure why Altdorf wouldn't allow either, mod designers would have to decide that one).
2) Which civilizations are allowed to go in different ways (my wife's Indian so I know that some of their gods are practically chaos gods (e.g. Kali [who's largely unknown in Southern India]), others considered good like to steal girls clothes while their bathing (Slaanesh or Amoral Neutrality) and so logically they'd also be able to go for order (Salvation/Spirituality). Can't really see India being agnostic, not with the state of the roads.
With the above I think the main difficulty is deciding what to do, then you can just copy and paste
<Building>
<BuildingClassType>BUILDINGCLASS_Pick a temple</BuildingClassType>
<BuildingType>NONE</BuildingType>
</Building>
into relevant civs.
Apologies that I'm not really discussing bugs here, just responding to above suggestions.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
The reason for this one is that Altdorf mainly was Salvation in all the old (and in the newest version) WH boardgame armybooks (with some Chaos cults causin trouble). Almost all, if not all, of this mod is based off of those old WH armybooks. There's some links for a few in different threads. Also, Spirituality is more geared towards the Eastern religions practiced by Cathay and Nippon.
Ind is, as it was explained to me, likely to be either Spirituality or Chaos. I guess it's a 50% chance for each. So, it's not really agnostic, far from it.
I have to agree with some of the last suggestions about recon units.
- I guess they should have a high escape rate, versus all but recon units, if possible. Thus allowing for "guerilla" tactics.
- They should keep their defensive bonus (they can hide and ambush in the wild, and use the fortifications like any foot unit in a city)
- Invisibility would be too powerful, I guess. At least, if given right from the start. But obtaining it through technology (wild paths, or some "wild" tech found later) could be interesting. This would force attackers to send scouts in order to sweep the land from those pesky scouts. Oh, and why not split "invisibility" into different promotions ? I mean, "Forest Camouflage", "Hills Camouflage", and the like ? But I'm against scouts being invisible everywhere at home, and visible just when stepping out of the border.This just wouldn't be logical. Spotting them for a little while, just as they move through plains from a forest area to another one, would seem much better.
- If possible, give them a "Backstab" bonus (yeah, it's rather an "ambush" bonus), maybe doubling their strength (or whatever ratio is OK) as long as they aren't seen. That way, scouts could be hidden and dangerous... or visible and quite lame. Needless to say, assassinating the few enemy scouts able to spot your guerilleros would be a very interesting tactic, if you can manage to catch them all. After this, the enemy would be forced to retreat, or sustain heavy damage due to weak, cheap, but elusive, units.
What do you think about it ?
- I guess they should have a high escape rate, versus all but recon units, if possible. Thus allowing for "guerilla" tactics.
- They should keep their defensive bonus (they can hide and ambush in the wild, and use the fortifications like any foot unit in a city)
- Invisibility would be too powerful, I guess. At least, if given right from the start. But obtaining it through technology (wild paths, or some "wild" tech found later) could be interesting. This would force attackers to send scouts in order to sweep the land from those pesky scouts. Oh, and why not split "invisibility" into different promotions ? I mean, "Forest Camouflage", "Hills Camouflage", and the like ? But I'm against scouts being invisible everywhere at home, and visible just when stepping out of the border.This just wouldn't be logical. Spotting them for a little while, just as they move through plains from a forest area to another one, would seem much better.
- If possible, give them a "Backstab" bonus (yeah, it's rather an "ambush" bonus), maybe doubling their strength (or whatever ratio is OK) as long as they aren't seen. That way, scouts could be hidden and dangerous... or visible and quite lame. Needless to say, assassinating the few enemy scouts able to spot your guerilleros would be a very interesting tactic, if you can manage to catch them all. After this, the enemy would be forced to retreat, or sustain heavy damage due to weak, cheap, but elusive, units.
What do you think about it ?
Ahriman
Tyrant
By the way, note that I'm not suggesting giving the recon units *all* of these bonuses, I'm just suggesting a range of possibilities.
The way I would suggest the invisibility working is that recon units would be able to spot other recon units, thus rewarding combined arms.
And invisibility still isn't that great if the units aren't strong enough to win fights; picking off stragglers is about the best they can get.
As for no defence bonus from terrain; if anything, I think recon units should be getting bonuses from terrain defences. Skirmish troops should be much better at using terrain to their advantage than regular soldiers.
So if anything I'd think of these as anti-cavalry; cav are relatively good in open country but weak in forests/marshes/jungles. Skirmish troops should be relatively weak in the open but stronger in hills/forests/marches/jungles.
But my single overall preferred bonus would be a 50% bonus vs beast units. I like the idea that you should have to get some hunters to fight off an early troll rush. Make them anti-monster specialists with some medium skirmish capability.
The way I would suggest the invisibility working is that recon units would be able to spot other recon units, thus rewarding combined arms.
And invisibility still isn't that great if the units aren't strong enough to win fights; picking off stragglers is about the best they can get.
As for no defence bonus from terrain; if anything, I think recon units should be getting bonuses from terrain defences. Skirmish troops should be much better at using terrain to their advantage than regular soldiers.
So if anything I'd think of these as anti-cavalry; cav are relatively good in open country but weak in forests/marshes/jungles. Skirmish troops should be relatively weak in the open but stronger in hills/forests/marches/jungles.
But my single overall preferred bonus would be a 50% bonus vs beast units. I like the idea that you should have to get some hunters to fight off an early troll rush. Make them anti-monster specialists with some medium skirmish capability.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
Now, that
, havin different types of invisibility would be cool. Yeah, the idea of seein, for example, a Hunter Skirmisher Troop when it's on the 1 tile in a nine tile area that's plains and then losin sight of him when he's on the other 8 tiles, which could be Forest tiles. That would mean the AI (and the players, who might do it anyway) would have to include Recon units in their stacks to flush out the other recon units better. That's a cool idea too. It could be an expansion on the mechanic from the promotion (in BTS and Vanilla Civ) "Ambush". (Ya know, the one that causes Armored Units to be hurt more when ya have it.) OF course, the recon unit would have to have one of the suggested Camouflage Promotions ("Hills Camouflage", "Forest Camouflage", etc.; see the quote at the top) and then could only use the "Ambash" (or "Backstab", watever) on the correspondin tile for the Camouflage promotion it has. It could act like a spell and be granted via the "Ambush" promotion.
For example, a Hunter Skirmisher Troop has the promotion "Forest Camouflage". You see an enemy comin. You move your recon unit to a forest. Then, you hit the "Ambush" action. It causes X% of damage to the enemy unit that is strongest. Then, your unit is obviously revealed. (That'd keep it from gettin overpowered and force you to be careful of movement points so you can move your unit after "Ambush".) Of course, there'd have to be a X% chance it could backfire, causin damage or even death to your unit.
