1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

xUPT

Discussion in 'Rise from Erebus Modmod' started by Valkrionn, May 31, 2010.

?

Should we merge the (optional!) xUPT mechanic?

  1. Yes!

    73.9%
  2. No!

    11.8%
  3. I don't care!

    4.3%
  4. PIE!!!

    9.9%
  1. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    So, we've been looking at a new feature in Afforess's mod, "A New Dawn" for "Rise of Mankind". The point of this poll is to gauge public interest in it. ;)

    That feature is xUPT; Check it's thread here, but please don't spam it with questions about RifE. Keep those in this thread. ;)

    Basically, it is a completely optional, configurable, Unit Per Tile limit. We do not have the BUG option interface, so I'd probably have a keybinding set to launch a popup to accomplish the same thing. I'd likely allow anything from 3 (lower would cause problems) to 15 (higher makes it pointless); I'd use something from 5-10 myself.

    There would be absolutely no custom AI work done for this; The AI is generally able to handle it fairly well. It evaluates actions on a stack-by-stack basis, so having more stacks allows it to make better use of them. If your read the thread I linked to, you'll see people are actually losing cities to the AI, with the same number of total units, where before they would have obliterated them. So the AI is very well able to handle it.

    The limit is also only applicable to your own team; Every team is under the limit, but only has to worry about their own units. So even if another team has the max units on a plot, you will be able to move a unit onto the plot.

    I'd modify the way cities are handled: If the city is full, units would be bumped out into the nearest available plot within the city's working radius. So generally speaking, up to two plots out. If there are no valid plots, no new units may be built. We'd then double(triple?) the number of units allowed in the city. Probably increase the limit on all fort tiles by 50% as well, make them very useful.

    To go with this, I'd probably include his "Surround and Destroy" mod as well, which grants combat bonuses when you surround enemies; Each plot around the enemy that is occupied by your units grants a bonus, up to a max of 60%. This would only be active with the UPT enabled, otherwise it would be too easily exploitable against the AI which would not use it.



    To summarize: We can merge an optional, configurable UPT limitation. If you like the idea, vote for it.
     
  2. Opera

    Opera Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Gender:
    Female
    You could make both the "number of units allowed on cities" and "number of units allowed on forts" be configurable the way the actual number would be ;)
     
  3. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    I don't think I'd do it that way, just because it could be too easily exploitable (set the limit lower, so the AI can't build units).

    I COULD have the fort increase be set in xml, though, so different tiers of fort have different bonuses.

    Edit: Then again, the limits would always be positive or 0, so you couldn't REDUCE a plot's limit just because it's a city or fort... So that may be doable.
     
  4. Opera

    Opera Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Gender:
    Female
    Forts: okay; but I'd say make that an additive bonus, like +1 or +5, not a percent. Just a hunch it would be best.

    Really what I'd do is make the configurable values GlobalDefines and leave them that. If people want to change them, they will go and modify the defines.
     
  5. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,875
    I like the idea of units being kicked out of the city (Right now, in AND, units just keep stacking in cities until they're moved out, in which case they can't be moved back in if the city is full) but one teeny issue Afforess saw was that kicking units out a distance away could lead to one-tile islands throwing troops to the mainland easily. Other than that (very) small possible issue, I like that idea.

    Triple might be a bit high.
     
  6. Jheral

    Jheral Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    502
    I'd agree; double in cities would be better.

    I like both additions. It would be very interesting to see how this will work in-game.
     
  7. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,696
    Personally I hate it.
    So if you do include it please make sure it can be turned off.

    Stacks are an important part of Civ and especially FFH. And there is absolutely nothing as epic as having a small stack of heroes hold a fort when attacked by a single huge stack of AI units.


    Why anyone would dislike stacks is beyond me.
    And I can't think of anything more annoying than having my units moved around the map so that some AI ally can pass.
     
  8. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    In the end, that may be the best way to do it. Lets us decide which values we like best so we can do (a small amount) of balancing for it, while still allows it to be changed fairly easily.

    The reason I went with multiplicative bonuses is the configurability of the mechanic; +2 would be awesome if you can only have 3 units on a tile, but would be much less enticing if you have 10. That would be one reason that having it unable to change during a game could be a good thing. Like I said, easier to balance the new additions that way. I wouldn't change anything non-UPT related, so the game would play the same with it off, just talking about the actual limit and then city/fort modifiers.

    That's actually why I said "out to workable radius". Could probably set it so the tile must be connected to the city via landroutes as well.
     
  9. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    Like I said, it's completely optional and can be turned off.

    I find HUGE stacks annoying. Only use around 10 units per stack for the most part anyway.
     
  10. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,875
    But the AI can walk through you. Its xUPTT if we get really technical (x Units Per Tile Per Team) meaning you won't create chokeholds against neutrals or friendlies but will against the enemy.

    Its a matter of taste. Its possible to enable it or disable it in game and you can set the tile limit yourself. It could be implemented and you would never have to see it.
     
  11. Opera

    Opera Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Gender:
    Female
    @PPQ_Purple: same as Valkrionn, I dislike big stacks :)
     
  12. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,875
    A multiplicative factor would work out much better and its much easier to take feedback than straight +1s and 2s since "doubling" the number should translate equally across the board instead of (+3) which would be a BIG deal for me but small deal on 15UPT.


    That's a great idea.
     
  13. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    Right, that's what I said. :p

    The difference is if we make it configurable in game or via defines. If the second one, not as many people would be changing things... And they could easily change the base stats as well if they so chose. Not any more difficult, since both would be xml. :p

    If it's all done in game, it will be multiplicative. Want to keep the effect noticeable and balanced for all possibilities.
     
  14. Till

    Till Adventurer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    4,171
    Location:
    Background Noise
    I would love it. It's one of my favourite feature requests, along with civ1/2 style zones of control for units.
     
  15. Torugu

    Torugu Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    382
    I think it should be made configurable in-game, anything which requires people to change games files would probably a pain in multiplayer (I don't know anything about modding, but unless this GlobalDefines thing is part of the .ini changing it would probably cause you to have a different game version than.)


    BTW: The only thing that's more boring than waiting for 60+ angels to commit suicide by attacking your lvl. 25 Beast of Agares is to besieging a city protected by 120+ Fellowship tigers (though I haven't ever seen that in rife - they probably got reborn as Frozen Tar Demons though)
     
  16. admtanaka

    admtanaka Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Yes looks like it is the overwhelming majority here (my vote too).

    I'm concerned about the AI, but if it can manage it, I will use this game option.
     
  17. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,696
    I am afraid about this going the way of broader alignments. Starting from optional and eventually becoming to permanently tied into the balance to be turned off without major moding.

    If you put this in, you will start balancing the game around it and soon it will go down into the realm of limited units and suck... Those are my fears at least.


    And there is nothing more exciting than watching a 15 minutes long battle.
     
  18. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    Nope. This is one feature that is too polarizing. Too many people absolutely hate it; I wouldn't make it required. The most it would be is for me to allow you to turn it off, rather than turn it on, but even that is unlikely; I won't do any rebalancing of units/etc with this feature in mind. It is entirely optional.

    And I absolutely hate long battles like that, so we have diametrically opposed opinions there. :p
     
  19. Randomness

    Randomness ...

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    557
    Location:
    ...
    This is kinda different thought. Broder alignments doesn't really change the wayt that the alignment system works drasticly. It makes the system interact with more things and makes it slightly more complex, but the general concept is the same. xUPT, however, is a very extreme change to gameplay and, as Valkiron said, has many strong feeling towards it (for and against).
     
  20. tesb

    tesb Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,593
    how much does it affect the time to calculate turns? that is always my greatest concern.
     

Share This Page