 |
| |
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
This thread is for describing unit abilities that would be interesting, and how they would work.
1. A TRUE submerge ability for subs and nuclear subs. If a unit fails it's 'detection chance' it should not be able to find the sub at all or know where it is, it should move onto that space as if it were empty.
2. Different types of Nuke:
Tac nuke, a missile with 98 attack can destroy all units in one stack.
A-Bomb: works like Civ 3 nuke
Hydrogen Strategic bomb: works more like SMAC planet-buster; all non-aligned nations declare permanent war + mega pollution.
3. Terrain based abilities: eg: archers +1 defence in forest, elephant bonus in jungle.
4. Treat X as Roads: instead of treat all terrain as roads, only certain types eg alpine units treats only mountains and glacier as roads, ranger treat jungle and forest as roads, etc.
5. Perma flight: Like Civ 2 helicopter except perpetual, good for satellite units.
6. Transport Helicopter/ Cargo Plane: can carry trade units, 2 paratroops.
7. Just like in Civ 3, the ability to give some units limited engineering abilities, like infantry that can build fortresses. 'Combat Engineer' abilities.
8. Minefield units, sea and land, work like subs.
9. Bad idea: Possibly give units more complex stats like apanzer general: air defence/offence, close att/def, Hard att/defence, etc. nah.
10. Sentry/patrol ability: Set units like these on auto-patrol of an area, if they encounter an enemy they automatically attack. Good for destroyers, can be switched off.
11. Abilties: Spread dissent, increases unhappiness for a while. Infiltrate: gain access to the enemies city menu for one city for one turn...maybe to powerful just make it abile to see enemies city for a turn??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
1. A TRUE submerge ability for subs and nuclear subs. If a unit fails it's 'detection chance' it should not be able to find the sub at all or know where it is, it should move onto that space as if it were empty. |
No. WAY too MM, and it's just stupid. Does the President say "oh, and btw, tell the subs to go underwater before attacking the enemy ships". This adds a fundamentally meaningless layer of "strategy" to the game.
quote:
2. Different types of Nuke:
Tac nuke, a missile with 98 attack can destroy all units in one stack.
A-Bomb: works like Civ 3 nuke
Hydrogen Strategic bomb: works more like SMAC planet-buster; all non-aligned nations declare permanent war + mega pollution. |
First, don't make the nuke flag be the attack value!. Just leave it as a normal unit flag like in C3. Second, no planet-busters and no auto-declaration of war. An H-Bomb is not going to turn nine tiles into ocean.
quote:
3. Terrain based abilities: eg: archers +1 defence in forest, elephant bonus in jungle. |
As an option in the editor.
quote:
4. Treat X as Roads: instead of treat all terrain as roads, only certain types eg alpine units treats only mountains and glacier as roads, ranger treat jungle and forest as roads, etc. |
Again, as an option in the editor.
quote:
5. Perma flight: Like Civ 2 helicopter except perpetual, good for satellite units. |
No satellite units, please. At most abstract them like in SMAC.
quote:
6. Transport Helicopter/ Cargo Plane: can carry trade units, 2 paratroops. |
Maybe as an NPC freighter like in GalCiv. Otherwise, too MM.
quote:
7. Just like in Civ 3, the ability to give some units limited engineering abilities, like infantry that can build fortresses. 'Combat Engineer' abilities. |
 but make the AI use them!
quote:
8. Minefield units, sea and land, work like subs. |
Maybe not as units.... but an interesting idea (and one many people have tried to implement, mostly failing) that should at least be in the editor.
quote:
9. Bad idea: Possibly give units more complex stats like apanzer general: air defence/offence, close att/def, Hard att/defence, etc. nah. |
You're right, bad idea  
quote:
10. Sentry/patrol ability: Set units like these on auto-patrol of an area, if they encounter an enemy they automatically attack. Good for destroyers, can be switched off. |
quote:
11. Abilties: Spread dissent, increases unhappiness for a while. Infiltrate: gain access to the enemies city menu for one city for one turn...maybe to powerful just make it abile to see enemies city for a turn?? |
A lot of this should be abstracted like in C3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
 |
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
since one turn = one year, are we saying that subs should be able to remain submerged several years? Perhaps that's too much detail.
However, I do believe detection isn't quite handled right. If a sub is not detected, you should sail right over him, like he's not there.
As it works now, you are navigating your ship through water when you get the call from the bridge:
First Officer: "Captain, we are at full power and cannot go due north. Look all the way to the horizon in the north...nothing there, but we can't move there. We can move east, west and south, but not north. What's going on?"
Captain: "Fire all guns due north"
 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
I think minefields might be better if they were put down by workers rather than another unit. Iguess workers could find them as well, but the one move/turn would hurt that effort.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
enslavement
At most I think that there should only be a couple of units with special abilities, like in C3C. limited enslave, limited hidden nationality, etc.
KISS
I agree with the thoughts that it should mainly be reserved for the editor and modding efforts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Actually, I thougth the enslavement option was a cool idea.
I wish there was away to simply have it enslave what it captured with ships. So you could more accurately simulate the Spanish Main with a chance of commandeering Galleons and Frigates and not having them all shrunk into Privateers. |
yeah, again firaxis has a good idea, but has a sloppy followthrough
(I know its been recommended to them to change this in the next patch, or make it editor-able, who knows if they do that or not.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Again, because the system doesn't do everything one could possibly hope for, it's sloppy? |
yes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Switch
|
 |
This just in, water has been discovered on Mars...
Apr 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lajzar
Here's one that should be brought back, and its corrolary:
Exerts zoc - as per civ2. Air units don't have a zoc if implemented civ3 style. Sea units with guided missiles (modern navies basically) have a zoc. Land units with missiles (archers upwards) have a zoc. This is of course a flag to be set, not hard coded.
Ignores all zoc - what it says. Should probably apply to submarines, guerillas, and diplomat/spy units. |
I would have to disagree whole heartedly on this. Civ3's ZOC is much better than civ2's, IMO, and is actually more realistic. Say you're playing a giga earth map, 256x256 or whatever...I'm not sure how wide the tiles are, but each tile works out to be several hundred km...sometimes even the civ3 style is a bit much, but i think it works fine.
quote:
oh, here's another flag:
AA gun [n] - will automatically launch a bombard attack of strength N on any aircraft unit that passes through an adjacent tile. Pass through here includes a) the straight line drawn between two cities when the airports are used for transport, and b) the straight line drawn between the base site and the target of a bombard mission.
Paradrop [n] - the unit can, as its entire move, jump up to N tiles from the city or airfield it is in. This move may be intercepted by units with the AA gun flag. |
Agree with you here. The way it works now, it's as if planes teleported . And paradropping was nice too, in SMAC. Maybe make it so that paratroopers can paradrop, ie a limited range from the city, and modern paratroopers can do strategic insertions, ie no range limit (like SMAC's orbital insertions).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins Do you have any clue as to how complex that would be for the AI to figure out? The defensive boni of terrain is enough... adding a bonus to specific units on specific terrain virtually guarantees that only a human would use it effectively. |
Looking at your post in the other thread about ZOC I'm noticing a pattern here. Anything that is difficult for the AI to implement that you happen to like is OK. But if you don't like the idea, you shoot it down with "Do you know how difficult that is for the AI?". Well too bad. Its a good idea. I like it. And given enough processing power, and intelligent design, it could be implemented. After all, what's the good of having an AI that's great a checkers??? It's still checkers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
I've been working on (producing mathematical models and algorithms for Civ AI) long enough to know whats expensive and difficult, and whats easy and cheap.
ZOC's are a bit more expensive than no ZOC's. You need a (2-state) blocking map, which simply alters the cost for your A* pathfinding. Its a bit more expensive, but not THAT much... simple to calculate and to use. This cost is even, in some circumstances, outweighed by the reduced number of entities (and hence AI cost,) and that forgets the game benefit to the player of reduced MM.
Terrain-based boni necessitate not only a costly db lookup for each of the units per terrain, or if you cache the information in the army record, a slightly less costly lookup.
This variable state modifier has to be calculated for opposing troop types on each of the 8 surrounding squares of a square, when a unit isn't directly attacking, and its within range of enemy units, to verify that its not moving to a more vulnerable position.
All in all... this is a very costly. I'm not saying we should be playing checkers... just that some ideas require unrealistic amounts of AI time. This idea is one of them.
Computers won't be that fast when Civ4 is released. The fastest computers now aren't exactly greased lightning now, with Civ3's AI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The simplication of air combat made that viable for the AI to use. (Of course even thats missing some vital functionality, like air superiority... but still.) The map is typically a pain in the ass. You need to avoid unecessary complications.
If the AI doesn't upgrade then its either a) not resourced correctly or b) just bad strategy (although it might be attacking a point that wasn't well defended when it made the plan.) Threat matching is pretty fundemental. Although you want to have some concept of ablative attacks, its a definite short coming, if you don't concentrate the attacks.
Upgrading is typically a tremendous benefit to the AI. Witness Updater2 in CTP2
As for including advantages that you can use, but the AI can't... that lessens the challenge of SP... it makes the AI easier to beat.. and just plain makes it look bad.
Witness the AI's weakness competing vs the crawler tactic in SMAC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins Terrain-based boni necessitate not only a costly db lookup for each of the units per terrain, or if you cache the information in the army record, a slightly less costly lookup.
This variable state modifier has to be calculated for opposing troop types on each of the 8 surrounding squares of a square, when a unit isn't directly attacking, and its within range of enemy units, to verify that its not moving to a more vulnerable position. |
I would humbly suggest that if people thought it was a good enough idea for game-play reasons, AI coders would come up with a clever way to implement it.
The movement bonuses are already essentially in the code since wheeled units have different movement penalties than foot soldiers. There's no reason that expanding that concept to allow other special cases wouldn't be a no brainer.
And as for the combat bonuses, there should already be some sort of code that takes into account "other powers". Otherwise an enslaving unit would be treated exactly like another unit of the same power, which is tactically incorrect since a loss to an enslaving unit is a "greater loss".
And the bigger issue, for me, is that Firaxis is capable of assessing the difficulty of programming the AI. By all accounts the Civ3 AI is significantly better than Civ2, and has gotten progressively better with each patch while adding increasingly complex game mechanics, such as zero-range bombardment.
By definition, this forum is for brainstorming what we would like the game mechanics to be if Firaxis thought it practical. If we come up with what we think is a great idea, but Firaxis can't implement it, so be it. As such your constant harping on the difficulty of the AI implementation doesn't really serve to encourage the spirit of brainstorming that we're working on.
It's better to come up with as creative ideas as possible, and leave the decision on the practical aspects of implementing it to Firaxis.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-12-2003 02:39
|