who decides those absurd obsoletes!

[Father Beast]

I was replaying a game, deciding to go for big science, and took the direct path to republic. along the way, I get beauracracy, and I get the message that "the follwing units are made obsolete by the advance of beauracracy", and the list included the warrior! I hadn't got bronze working yet, so that meant I could now construct NO MILITARY FOOT UNITS at all!!!

if something obsoletes something, shouldn't it be an advance that provides a replacement?

[SoulFisher]

I've run into that problem too. Usually, I had Domestication (providing Mounted Archers) before I researched Bureaucracy, but I see your point. I suppose you could change the obsolesence in the units.txt file . . . .

I'v been a little paranoid about defence, lately. I've been researching Bronze Working right off the bat.

[omnibus]

units replacement

Another point: It would be fair to have a chance to build a new unit as a replacement of an old one. The old one would be deleted, but the production of a new one would be cheaper (something like the difference between production cost of the obsolete and modern unit). And the new unit would keep its Veteran status.

It always makes me said to disband all my good old units, when a new is advanced. But at the other hand I don't want to have billions of old trash week legions when machine gunner is available. I just want my army being up-to-date.

Just an idea for CCTP creators.

[blackice]

I totally agree with you on all points.

Try this one on for size you just planted your first cities and start making warriors. Now at this stage in the game generally that is all you have. Then your first warrior comes out so you send him searching.

You find that ruin and walk into it and wham it gives you beauracracy...

So now what you are left with one warrior to defend your civ with, dumb simply dumb. Like why beauracracy? why not bronze working eliminates the warrior? I have yet to figure that one out?

Wake up game designers this and all the rest of the bugs, flaws etc do nothing but leave me feeling like I bought a box... an empty one at that.

[Father Beast]

Re: units replacement

Originally posted by omnibus
Another point: It would be fair to have a chance to build a new unit as a replacement of an old one. The old one would be deleted, but the production of a new one would be cheaper (something like the difference between production cost of the obsolete and modern unit). And the new unit would keep its Veteran status.

It always makes me said to disband all my good old units, when a new is advanced. But at the other hand I don't want to have billions of old trash week legions when machine gunner is available. I just want my army being up-to-date.

Just an idea for CCTP creators.

Ummm... Haven't they all quit? I mean, CTP2 didn't have much initial sales, so they won't support it, and all? or do you mean modmakers?

BTW, I still did have mounted archers, but crossing the mountains was out of the question for a while

[Immortal Wombat]

Bronze working also obsoletes warriors, but by the time you have beaurocracy, Activision assumed you already have bronze working. (On easier levels you often start with it). Then, the diplomat is the replacement for the warrior, due to it being the next unit with a vision range of 2.

[SoulFisher]

Come to think of it, I did play one game in which the first ruin I walked into gave me Bureaucracy. I typically play large maps with few civs, but, I saw the problem. I was freaked!!

I wonder if SLIC could be used to decide whether or not Warriors should be obsoleted with Bureaucracy.

[J Bytheway]

Re: units replacement

Originally posted by omnibus
Another point: It would be fair to have a chance to build a new unit as a replacement of an old one. The old one would be deleted, but the production of a new one would be cheaper (something like the difference between production cost of the obsolete and modern unit). And the new unit would keep its Veteran status.

Firstly the MedMod has militias to (sort of) solve this problem.

Secondly, you can get the new unit cheaper by disbanding your old one (Which puts half its production cost into the currently producing item) This would, of course, leave your city undefended until the new unit is completed (If you're using only one defense per city), so you'll probably need to rush buy the rest of it.

John

[Dictatress]

more absurd obsoletes

I never have the warrior-beurocracy problem, because I research bronze working before anything else. But here's another obsolete that drives me crazy: fighters and jet propulsion.
In order to fight a proper war, I MUST research jet propulsion, or I will be without bombers. Now, who on earth got it into his head that all bombers had jet engines??!! By gaining bombers, I lose the ability to produce fighters, limiting the range of my combat aircraft!!!

[J Bytheway]

Re: more absurd obsoletes

Originally posted by Dictatress
here's another obsolete that drives me crazy: fighters and jet propulsion.
In order to fight a proper war, I MUST research jet propulsion, or I will be without bombers. Now, who on earth got it into his head that all bombers had jet engines??!! By gaining bombers, I lose the ability to produce fighters, limiting the range of my combat aircraft!!!

But you get interceptors, which are better than fighters, right? I don't get your problem .

I wonder if SLIC could be used to decide whether or not Warriors should be obsoleted with Bureaucracy.

There's no need to resort to SLIC - you just edit units.txt (search for UNIT_WARRIOR and there you'll find a few OBSOLETE_ADVANCE entries. Just remove the ones you don't want.

[TheBirdMan]

And if you add this line:

GOVERNMENT_TYPE GOVERNMENT_THEOCRACY

the unit can only exist under that government (it simply get disbanded automatically).

(or lines like this)

GOVERNMENT_TYPE GOVERNMENT_ANARCHY
GOVERNMENT_TYPE GOVERNMENT_THEOCRACY
GOVERNMENT_TYPE GOVERNMENT_MONARCHY

the unit can only exist under above 2 governments and the anarchy period(s).

Have tried it - it works very fine. You can use it with all forms of governments, just remebmer to include the anarchy.

[Dictatress]

Re: Re: more absurd obsoletes

Originally posted by J Bytheway


But you get interceptors, which are better than fighters, right? I don't get your problem .

Sorry for a late reply. Here's my problem: a fighter has three turns' worth of fuel, and an interceptor has two turns' worth. The fact that cumulatively it's the same amount doesn't help much. Let's say you fly into enemy territory and see a nice target just out of your reach. If you're using an interceptor, too bad. You have to get back to a city next turn. If you have a fighter, next turn you can attack. Sometimes you need to stay in enemy territory a little longer than a single turn.

[J Bytheway]

I agree,that's dumb. Interceptors are worse than fighters in that respect, then. I didn't realise fighters had three turns of fuel. I expect they fixed this along with pretty much everything else along these lines in the MedMod. Get that, and forget regular CTP.

[jpww]

Let's not get too hasty; MedMod has its quirks as well. For instance, a knight is just as powerful as a cavalry unit is! The only difference between them is movement range, which IMO is ludicrous. As if the discovery of gunpowder would enable a horse to travel further

Before installing this mode, examine the docs and spreadsheets provided to see what I mean...



Edit: wordiness

[blackice]

Somethings in the game are oddly relavant, in this case the difference of a fighter to an intercepter.

I say this because reallity often shows up in this game, one of the reasons I still play it.

Ok I will try to explain my point of view here lol bare with me lol.

Ok fighter has 3 vs. 2 but the range for the intercepter is close to the same, the intercepter is med range both ways. easy to plot a course. The fighter stays up longer, short range more times, but does not have the punch or the quick medium range to take out immediate targets. The fighter, yes stays longer but like todays props are designed for scouting etc, unless if I think I am right you are talking suicide runs. In that case yes fighters are better. I would not often use an intercepter to suicide. Reality is think ww2 and the need for long range well that is your fighter. Now think present quick agile destructive and medium range. Why, refueling in the air more bases to refuel at in general.

Personally I make a few fighters for just that reason, scouting, border patrol. I dive for Jets and bombers make a few because space fighters and other equipment in space beat them all.

Equate it to this would you make lots of samuri or pikemen, and then muskets. Yes I know depends on the game but science at that stage is either fast or slow depending on your abilities.

Why no bombers think ww2 they were only good enmase a waste of resources in this game really or in reallity. Think if you spent all those resources on bombers and the opponent has intercepters, plus the fact they were not accurate the hit miss ratio was terrible at best. Try playing B17 a great game with as close as they can stats for the equipment used. Look at the kill ratio that tells alot in reallity. It was the best they had, did the trick but...

Todays bombers carry a nuke or less but they have great ability to hit a target, very few lost and high but modern maintence cost's. So IMO they did that in that way because of those reasons.

I could go on but that is food for thought... tanks today vs yesterday are similar.

But lets face it we have warriors to this day...