Announcement

**Immortal Wombat** · January 4, 2003, 19:45

The translation is easy as the hard part of the work (the code, the template... actually all the real work) has already been done by Hexagonian

um, that would be Peter Triggs' code actually

**Martin the Dane** · January 4, 2003, 20:10

Well good idea. But I don't agree on the update paths.

First Warriors have a different function from Hoplites and Pikemenn, the first is a good scout and mediocre defender, the two later are lousy scouts but excelent defenders. Infantrymenn eventually replaced both and archers as well.



Warrior        \ 

(Archer)        >Infantryman>Machine Gunner>Marine>Hover Infantry

Hoplite>Pikemen/

Second Cavalery replaced both Knights and Mounted Archers, maybe Archers should be upgraded to Infantrymen paralell with Wariors and Pikemen



Knight                 \

                        >Cavalry>Tank>Fusion Tank

(Archer)>Mounted Archer/

The Coracle is an unarmed troop carier, and it sounds strange to have a Battleship upgraded to a Destroyer type ship. I'm not sure I think the ships should be upgradeable at all, but if they are upgradeable it should be:



Coracle>Longship>Drakkar>Carrack>Troop Ship



Fire Trireme>Ship of the Line>Ironclad>Battleship(>Plasma Destroyer)

**Maquiladora** · January 4, 2003, 20:36

Mounted archers shouldnt be upgraded to Cavalry, thats too easy and mounted archers arent flankers either.

Mounted archers should be a dead end, warriors to infantrymen is... too weird. Id have warriors upgradable to samurai then a dead end, or if not that then warriors should be dead end too.

Everything else i agree with Martin.

Is Longship named Drakkar on the french version?

**Martin the Dane** · January 4, 2003, 21:05

Maq you have a point concerning Mounted Archers' lack of flanking ability, but if the price is high enough?

My reasoning for upgrading Wariors to Infantrymen is that Wariors have the same function as Infantrymen, but I do agree that it's a bit strange to make that jump.

Samurais have a major weakness when used as scouting units, beside being quite expensive: They lack the virion range. Personally I'm not sure I would make the upgrade.

**Tamerlin** · January 4, 2003, 21:38

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Is Longship named Drakkar on the french version?

Yes it is.

**Tamerlin** · January 4, 2003, 21:41

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat um, that would be Peter Triggs' code actually

As it has been included in the Cradle mod I assumed Hexagonian wrote the code...

**hexagonian** · January 4, 2003, 22:01

No the credit goes to Peter on this - and it is probably one of the most important pieces of SLIC coding to come out, IMO, because it makes RB gold very valuable, and it keeps the AI forces up-to-date.

I set the upgrade costs to be the same as the production costs for the more advanced unit. So if the newer unit costs 1000 production, then the upgrade cost for the older unit would be 1000 gold.

The default game does generate a lot of gold for the player (I'm not sure how much Dale tampered with the gold settings for the Pack), so what you can also do is go into the APOL_govern.txt file and bump up the coefficients for Rush Buying in each government.

**Maquiladora** · January 4, 2003, 22:07

Originally posted by Martin the Dane
Maq you have a point concerning Mounted Archers' lack of flanking ability, but if the price is high enough?

A high enough price would certainly even out the power of this upgrade, but it still looks abit weird. Add to this that mounted archers only ever get used as either scouting units or fast ranged partners for knights or samurai, and knights upgrade to cavalry already so, this upgrade wouldnt be my choice...

Samurais have a major weakness when used as scouting units, beside being quite expensive: They lack the virion range. Personally I'm not sure I would make the upgrade.

Yeah thats why i wasnt sure, but if we try to keep with (slightly obscure) historical accuracy, warriors to samurai just fits nicely, although both have very different uses in the game, especially as samurai are special forces aswell. (not that anyone changes their military readiness settings)

So Warriors dead end and Samurai dead end, to keep the game more focused on unit uses, which is more sensible for gameplay.

My reasoning for upgrading Wariors to Infantrymen is that Wariors have the same function as Infantrymen, but I do agree that it's a bit strange to make that jump.

Well the warrior is an attack unit (albeit a crap one) and infantry is defensive, so id go for warriors as a dead end again.

I wouldnt have upgrades for non-combat units either. Upgrading a settler to a urban planner your buying 2 pop points, you could build loads of settlers then upgrade when you get urban planners.

**Tamerlin** · January 4, 2003, 22:07

Originally posted by Martin the Dane
First Warriors have a different function from Hoplites and Pikemenn, the first is a good scout and mediocre defender, the two later are lousy scouts but excelent defenders. Infantrymenn eventually replaced both and archers as well.

You are right, I started with the idea to associate defenders with defenders but it made for very short upgrade path or for very long delays between each upgrade. I think the warrior can be a "dead end" and the upgrade path could start with the Hoplite.

Second Cavalery replaced both Knights and Mounted Archers, maybe Archers should be upgraded to Infantrymen paralell with Warriors and Pikemen

My idea was to associate ranged units together but you have a very good point here, I will edit my first post just after my answer.

The Coracle is an unarmed troop carier...

It has an attack strength, can carry a unit and is available with the next tech on the same line as the Longship on the poster. This explains why I thought it was logical to upgrade the Coracle to the Longship though it does not explain why I have put the Coracle on the wrong update path.

...it sounds strange to have a Battleship upgraded to a Destroyer type ship.

I looked at their abilities and thought they have more or less the same role on the battlefield, I am not sure the Activision team choosed the name according to the military classification used by the navies of the real naval power.



Fire Trireme>Ship of the Line>Ironclad>Battleship(>Plasma Destroyer)

I am reluctant to upgrade the Ship of the Line to Ironclad as I have some trouble to imagine doing anything else than sending some of those old wooden ships to a museum and use the other ones as firewood.

**Tamerlin** · January 4, 2003, 22:19

Originally posted by hexagonian
No the credit goes to Peter on this - and it is probably one of the most important pieces of SLIC coding to come out, IMO, because it makes RB gold very valuable, and it keeps the AI forces up-to-date.

What is owned by Cesar has been given back to Cesar.

I set the upgrade costs to be the same as the production costs for the more advanced unit. So if the newer unit costs 1000 production, then the upgrade cost for the older unit would be 1000 gold.

Thanks for your answer, it will greatly ease my conversion. I should have figured it...

The default game does generate a lot of gold for the player (I'm not sure how much Dale tampered with the gold settings for the Pack), so what you can also do is go into the APOL_govern.txt file and bump up the coefficients for Rush Buying in each government.

As I am not a real modder I am a bit afraid to tinker with such important datas...

**hexagonian** · January 4, 2003, 22:34

Looks like Dale did not tamper with govern.txt, as there is no APOL_govern.txt file. So he kept the government default, as is.

Anyhow, the entries look like this, in each government entry.

UnitRushModifier 4
BuildingRushModifier 3
WonderRushModifier 6
EndGameRushModifier 6

Simply increase the numbers - changing 4 to 8 means that the cost will be (8x) gold of the remaining production needed to complete the item instead of (4x) gold. Rush buying thus becomes more costly.

(and make a backup of the file before changing if you are hesitant)

Couple that with Upgrading costs and the player has a dilemma - either save your gold for the upgrade or RB a needed item. You end up having to do a lot more long-term planning.

**Tamerlin** · January 4, 2003, 22:36

Originally posted by Maquiladora
A high enough price would certainly even out the power of this upgrade, but it still looks abit weird. Add to this that mounted archers only ever get used as either scouting units or fast ranged partners for knights or samurai, and knights upgrade to cavalry already so, this upgrade wouldnt be my choice...

Your choice would then be a shorter Update Path like :

Archer>Mounted Archer

Yeah thats why i wasnt sure, but if we try to keep with (slightly obscure) historical accuracy, warriors to samurai just fits nicely, although both have very different uses in the game, especially as samurai are special forces aswell. (not that anyone changes their military readiness settings)

So Warriors dead end and Samurai dead end, to keep the game more focused on unit uses, which is more sensible for gameplay.

Warrior and Samurai are now dead end units.

I wouldnt have upgrades for non-combat units either. Upgrading a settler to a urban planner your buying 2 pop points, you could build loads of settlers then upgrade when you get urban planners.

You are right for the Settler>Urban planner Update Path, I have overlooked this fact and I have removed it.

For the other civilian units I am more reserved, I can't see why you could not upgrade a Diplomat to an Empathic Diplomat.

**Tamerlin** · January 4, 2003, 22:45

Thanks for your help Hexagonian.

Originally posted by hexagonian
Simply increase the numbers - changing 4 to 8 means that the cost will be (8x) gold of the remaining production needed to complete the item instead of (4x) gold. Rush buying thus becomes more costly.

Isn't doubling the Rush Buy cost too much especially in the earlier part of the game?

(and make a backup of the file before changing if you are hesitant)

I would be well advised to do so...

Couple that with Upgrading costs and the player has a dilemma - either save your gold for the upgrade or RB a needed item. You end up having to do a lot more long-term planning.

The dilemma is indeed interesting.

**hexagonian** · January 4, 2003, 23:13

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Thanks for your help Hexagonian.

Isn't doubling the Rush Buy cost too much especially in the earlier part of the game?

I have not played the default game for over 2 years now, so I cannot recall just how much gold is generated, but I do recall it was a lot. I do feel that Rush Buying should be hard - if used, it should save a few turns but not a lot, and it should be used sparingly. I pushed it higher in Cradle across the board because that was the easiest way to make it tougher.

It does depend on what you are comfortabe with. Upgrading costs should put a dent in your gold though, so you may want to leave it alone.

You may want to test it with just the upgrade costs alone, but ask the question while playing... 'Is it still too easy to both upgrade units and consistently rush buy'?

In setting up my files, I tried to make it so I could not do both - so now I save my gold for upgrading and rush buy very rarely - and its based solely on emergency when I do.

Now I build a lot of caravans/gold enhancements because I need to.

Announcement

Unit Updater for Super Apolyton Pack 2

Unit Updater for Super Apolyton Pack 2

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment