civ2civ3 naval units fix
ddeanbrown ddeanbrown ddeanbrown ddeanbrown Patches for master and S3_1 attached for review
alienvalkyrie In the S3_1 patch, the "NonMil" is added to the roles for the Galleon, which causes ruleset load failure.
That seems to be the only difference to the master patch; so we might not even need a separate S3_1 patch (but rather use the same patch for both branches) ~> could you confirm that?
If your patches include metadata (author, commit message etc.), like those created by git format-patch (after committing your changes, use e.g. git format-patch origin/master), then after merging, the commits are correctly attributed to you. When you do, make sure the commit message refers to this ticket, e.g. with a "See osdn#45225" line; if you've already committed them, you can use git commit --amend to change the message after the fact.
(If you'd rather not to do that, I'll credit you in the commit message instead.)
ddeanbrown ddeanbrown ddeanbrown 2nd try with corrections. Changes are the same to master and S3_1 so this patch should work for both.
alienvalkyrie Just commenting that the tireme and caravel (as of 3.0) both have attack values of 1 in the civ2civ3 ruleset, somewhat justifying their unhappiness requirement (though I personally haven't seen AI attack with them in games I played). It might be best to set their attack to 0.
If the carrier is being changed into a field unit, I think it should have a non-zero attack value to justify it being a field unit (in the classic ruleset, it was set to 1).
alienvalkyrie Reply To (Anonymous)
Just commenting that the tireme and caravel (as of 3.0) both have attack values of 1 in the civ2civ3 ruleset, somewhat justifying their unhappiness requirement (though I personally haven't seen AI attack with them in games I played). It might be best to set their attack to 0.
That's already part of the patch.
If the carrier is being changed into a field unit, I think it should have a non-zero attack value to justify it being a field unit (in the classic ruleset, it was set to 1).
I take it you're saying the patch shouldn't be merged in its current state? I'll delay pushing it until this question is resolved.
I don't exactly agree. For one, all carrier-based units except one (the AWACS) are combat units, and putting them on a carrier generally implies offensive use, so I think a carrier is plenty aggressive enough to justify being a field unit, even without an attack value – but ultimately that's a balancing issue, which I don't feel qualified to make judgment calls on.
More importantly however, at the point in the game where carriers come in, a small-but-nonzero attack power isn't gonna do anything significant (except make the AI / auto-attack server advisors do stupid things, or maybe get in a desperado attack against something that's already almost dead?), and an attack power significant enough to do anything would probably be overpowered.
There's also an argument to be made that a carrier's offensive capabilities should come entirely from the planes it has on board as a matter of preference.
Reply To alienvalkyrie
Reply To (Anonymous)
Just commenting that the tireme and caravel (as of 3.0) both have attack values of 1 in the civ2civ3 ruleset, somewhat justifying their unhappiness requirement (though I personally haven't seen AI attack with them in games I played). It might be best to set their attack to 0.
That's already part of the patch.
Great, I must have missed that detail.
If the carrier is being changed into a field unit, I think it should have a non-zero attack value to justify it being a field unit (in the classic ruleset, it was set to 1).
I take it you're saying the patch shouldn't be merged in its current state? I'll delay pushing it until this question is resolved. I don't exactly agree. For one, all carrier-based units except one (the AWACS) are combat units, and putting them on a carrier generally implies offensive use, so I think a carrier is plenty aggressive enough to justify being a field unit, even without an attack value – but ultimately that's a balancing issue, which I don't feel qualified to make judgment calls on.
More importantly however, at the point in the game where carriers come in, a small-but-nonzero attack power isn't gonna do anything significant (except make the AI / auto-attack server advisors do stupid things, or maybe get in a desperado attack against something that's already almost dead?), and an attack power significant enough to do anything would probably be overpowered.
There's also an argument to be made that a carrier's offensive capabilities should come entirely from the planes it has on board as a matter of preference.
I understand a fully loaded carrier is a literal war machine (and I have used it in games to clean up), but the bombers, helicopters, cruise missiles and nukes (if it carries any of those) are already field units. Not to mention in the civ2civ3 ruleset, it can carry standard land units (but not big land units which I personally find odd considering a carrier should have the capability to store those). When its out at open sea which it will be a lot when someone has that much units, the owning civilization is already going to take a massive hit in unhappiness that unless the carrier is given the capability to attack, I don't see the point in making it a field unit when most of units it carries are already field units or will be outside the civilization's borders for the majority of the carrier's shelf life (since under civ2civ3 rules, only adjacent to city oceanic tiles are under borders).
ddeanbrown I don't have a problem with the carrier being a field unit with attack = 0.
I would prefer it to not carry land units (except maybe Marines), that's more realistic. Making that change is also a bit of mission creep for this ticket, but I would be OK with it. Of the standard supplied rulesets, currently only civ2civ3 and sandbox allow transporting land units, the others do not. SIM30 and mp2-caravel do not, LTT does.
ddeanbrown Just realized that in my patch I changed the helptext for the Trireme - with the change to attack=0 it was incorrect. That helptext is a translated string, so new translations needed. Should be easy, it's just deleting some words. Maybe need a new ticket for that task?
Reply To ddeanbrown
Of the standard supplied rulesets, currently only civ2civ3 and sandbox
When doing changes to civ2civ3, one usually needs to either do the same change to sandbox, or to document the difference in README.sandbox (from the point of how sandbox differs from civ2civ3, even though it was civ2civ3 that changed)
Reply To ddeanbrown
I changed the helptext for the Trireme - with the change to attack=0 it was incorrect ... Maybe need a new ticket for that task?
It's logically part of the attack = 0 change, isn't it? So belongs to this ticket.
alienvalkyrie The way I see it, there are two things still blocking this patch:
For the former, I'd tend toward porting the changes to the sandbox ruleset – unless the old behavior is necessary for some other use of new features in the sandbox ruleset (which, without checking, sounds unlikely).
For the latter, the safest compromise would likely be (a), i.e. to leave the carrier as-is, or perhaps to give it uk_happy without being a field unit; (b) has already gotten resistance, and (c) doesn't really seem better IMO – attacking anything (except maybe a sub?) with a carrier doesn't seem like something that would be sensible anyhow.
It would be good to get this go forward, so such a change to default ruleset would be exposed to testing already.
For the sandbox part, just default to making same changes there - there's no reason given not to have civ2civ3 and sandbox similar in this respect.
If we have no agreement on the carrier issue, maybe leave that part out from this patch (so the issue won't block this any further), and open a separate ticket for it. Or does someone consider it such an elementary part of this overall change, that the other parts should not go in either, without it?
alienvalkyrie New patch with the following changes relative to the previous one:
alienvalkyrie Note: I'll leave opening a separate ticket for the Carrier question to whomever feels there still needs to be a change.
I'm a bit late here, but I wanted to point that removing the attack capability of Trireme and Caravel is a mayor gameplay changer that could cause undesired results.
I find it very important that it always exists a naval unit with attack capability, else they can be used to block the movement of enemy naval units without any possibility to avoid it. I agree the AI never use them to attack or avoid blockades, and single player games would be unaffected, but multiplayer could be seriously affected.
About the Carrier, I don't see any reason to make it a field unit. In game it is not an advantage for the player to build lots of them, and they are harmless inside cities (or domestic land where the field flag makes a difference). Also, in real life people are not usually worried if its nation is building or using carriers in war, but mainly concerned about missiles, bombers, and nuclear weapons.
Reply To bard
I'm a bit late here, but I wanted to point that removing the attack capability of Trireme and Caravel is a mayor gameplay changer that could cause undesired results. I find it very important that it always exists a naval unit with attack capability, else they can be used to block the movement of enemy naval units without any possibility to avoid it. I agree the AI never use them to attack or avoid blockades, and single player games would be unaffected, but multiplayer could be seriously affected.
That's why variant2 ruleset provides early ships in pairs - one to act as ferry, and the other for naval war if player wants to.
The reason why submarines and carriers had uk_happy=0 was that in game they are expensive units that are not usually worth the risk to keep outside cities, while in real life they are actually the units that use to remain outside cities even in peace time. I did not want the happiness to discourage even more their use outside cities, but changing them to uk_happy=1 is a valid option in my opinion.
Reply To cazfi
That's why variant2 ruleset provides early ships in pairs - one to act as ferry, and the other for naval war if player wants to.
That sounds like a good alternative too.
I have not found the ticket about carriers, I'll answer here:
Reply To ddeanbrown
I would prefer it to not carry land units (except maybe Marines), that's more realistic. Making that change is also a bit of mission creep for this ticket, but I would be OK with it. Of the standard supplied rulesets, currently only civ2civ3 and sandbox allow transporting land units, the others do not. SIM30 and mp2-caravel do not, LTT does.
As long as Helicopters can carry Land units, and Carriers can carry Helicopters, I think it makes sense that Carriers can also carry Land units. It'd make sense to restrict it to Marines, but Cargo is linked to the unit class, so you would need to create a whole new unit class just for this purpose.
Reply To (Anonymous)
I understand a fully loaded carrier is a literal war machine (and I have used it in games to clean up), but the bombers, helicopters, cruise missiles and nukes (if it carries any of those) are already field units. Not to mention in the civ2civ3 ruleset, it can carry standard land units (but not big land units which I personally find odd considering a carrier should have the capability to store those). When its out at open sea which it will be a lot when someone has that much units, the owning civilization is already going to take a massive hit in unhappiness that unless the carrier is given the capability to attack, I don't see the point in making it a field unit when most of units it carries are already field units or will be outside the civilization's borders for the majority of the carrier's shelf life (since under civ2civ3 rules, only adjacent to city oceanic tiles are under borders).
I agree it makes sense that Carriers can also carry Big Land units. The ruleset did not allow it because in real life, tanks and such big wheeled units needs a port facility to disembark from a Carrier, while you need some other cargo ship to land them on a beach or coast. My concern was that Carriers would replace completely the use of Transport ships. But now that rulesets are allowed to define which unit class can embark or disembark outside cities, I see it possible to allow Big Land on Carriers too. I'm still in doubt about Small Land though (non military workers and such).
Reply To bard
I'm a bit late here
As for the future schedule, our goal is to run major release cycles approximately two years apart. So 3.2.0 datafile format freeze is expected next year, likely somewhere between May and Aug. By the time version hits beta1, we should have rulesets mostly developed (they too hit beta1, after all).
Fixes to civ2civ3 naval units -
Make Triremes, Caravels, Galleons and Transports non-military units with uk_happy=0 and attack=0 so there will always be a naval unit that can transport a caravan to an overseas foreign city during peacetime.
Submarines and Carriers should have uk_happy=1. Also make Carrier a FieldUnit.