Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E. Tech Tree: Land units, techs and doctrines

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Re: Re: Re: Garrison Troops

Originally posted by vertinox
Hrm... What about V2 missles or ICMBs that have to be strategically redeployed?
Click to expand...
That's hardcoded in the exe. Note that in the unit file they have maxspeed in the thousands so that's obviously not being treated like other units.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Garrison Troops

Originally posted by jdrou
That's hardcoded in the exe. Note that in the unit file they have maxspeed in the thousands so that's obviously not being treated like other units.
Click to expand...

Maybe there is something in the code about super-high speeds equalling zero? MDow
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Garrison Troops

Originally posted by MateDow
Maybe there is something in the code about super-high speeds equalling zero? MDow
Click to expand...
I think rockets are just treated like air units (probably using same code) except they aren't allowed to rebase. That's probably why it used to be (or still is?) possible to intercept them with air units.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Garrison Troops

Originally posted by jdrou
I think rockets are just treated like air units (probably using same code) except they aren't allowed to rebase. That's probably why it used to be (or still is?) possible to intercept them with air units.
Click to expand...

U can rebase if U have mobile launch site researched, beside that yes, they are 'aircrafts' as far as the game goes amd it sucks if they retreat from interception with 0 org :p

I rebased some to Brazil once and launched my attack from there :D
 
Originally posted by Ögedei Khan
The "coastal cargo vessel" (transport.txt) seems to be out of line, when you look at its cost and build time. You can build much better TPs for less IC in a shorter time. A mistake?
Click to expand...

No, it's done on purpouse - since that's "0" class of the transport, all the countries can build those.The cost and time is there to stop Ethiopia and similar countries from roaming with their mighty transports fleets around the world... :D

Similar thing happens with zero level destroyer and cruiser.
 
Build Script Question

Havard's tutor says that "yes" instructs the AI to relative build units and no to use the defined % build list.


From Harvard's Hacking Haven:...

The parameter 'relative_build_scheme = [yes/no]' was introduced in 1.03, and is used to define if the AI should strive to maintain a relative balance between unit types [yes] or simply allocate percentages of the total production [no] as defined. The default value is "yes".
____________________________________
His example...

military = {

relative_build_scheme = no

infantry = 44
cavalry = 0
motorized = 8
mechanized = 6
panzer = 10
paratrooper = 0
marine = 0
bergsjaeger = 2
# 70 %

(cut off here)

______________________________________

From CORE USA file...

military = {

relative_build_scheme = yes

infantry = 4
cavalry = 0
motorized = 9
mechanized = 10
panzer = 8
paratrooper = 3
marine = 7
bergsjaeger = 0
# 41 %

(cut off here.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Harvard incorrect or did the 1:03 patch switch the yes/no ?

Or am I mis-understanding this.



:confused: :confused:
 
Re: Build Script Question

Originally posted by Budgie
Havard's tutor says that "yes" instructs the AI to relative build units and no to use the defined % build list.


From Harvard's Hacking Haven:...

The parameter 'relative_build_scheme = [yes/no]' was introduced in 1.03, and is used to define if the AI should strive to maintain a relative balance between unit types [yes] or simply allocate percentages of the total production [no] as defined. The default value is "yes".
____________________________________
His example...

military = {

relative_build_scheme = no

infantry = 44
cavalry = 0
motorized = 8
mechanized = 6
panzer = 10
paratrooper = 0
marine = 0
bergsjaeger = 2
# 70 %

(cut off here)

______________________________________

From CORE USA file...

military = {

relative_build_scheme = yes

infantry = 4
cavalry = 0
motorized = 9
mechanized = 10
panzer = 8
paratrooper = 3
marine = 7
bergsjaeger = 0
# 41 %

(cut off here.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Harvard incorrect or did the 1:03 patch switch the yes/no ?

Or am I mis-understanding this.



:confused: :confused:
Click to expand...

Personally, I have no idea. I know, big help. AIs aren't my thing. But I do know that Havard's site hasn't been updated since 1.03, so I'm not sure what is, and is no longer valid. some commands and triggers and such have been removed or altered, or just plain never worked, or worked right. I'm sure Steel or Copper can give a more thorough answer.
 
Re: Re: Build Script Question

Originally posted by JRaup
Personally, I have no idea. I know, big help. AIs aren't my thing. But I do know that Havard's site hasn't been updated since 1.03, so I'm not sure what is, and is no longer valid. some commands and triggers and such have been removed or altered, or just plain never worked, or worked right. I'm sure Steel or Copper can give a more thorough answer.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that "yes" means "yes" and "no" - no in case of relative building scheme.

There was serious discussion on the forum, which option is better, and currently most of the files prefer "no" option. Mainly due to the fact, that "yes" have to be much more balanced.

Example - UK staring forces got around 80/10/10 (sea/air/land) composition. If we use relative scheme with "yes" and prepare build plan with 60/20/20 proportion, AI will build alnd and air units ONLY, until it meet 60/20/20 ratio.

Generally "yes" is quite good when it comes to the nation with realtively small starting army, and very bad for the nation with well-developed forces.
 
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
No, it's done on purpouse - since that's "0" class of the transport, all the countries can build those.The cost and time is there to stop Ethiopia and similar countries from roaming with their mighty transports fleets around the world... :D

Similar thing happens with zero level destroyer and cruiser.
Click to expand...

I understand using that workaround for units that can't be disabled, but it's possible to disable transport ships (IIRC, Brasil can't build transports in vanilla, Portugal couldn't either unitl some patch, and other countries can't either). Why not just disable them until the tech is researched?
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
I understand using that workaround for units that can't be disabled, but it's possible to disable transport ships (IIRC, Brasil can't build transports in vanilla, Portugal couldn't either unitl some patch, and other countries can't either). Why not just disable them until the tech is researched?
Click to expand...

Is that something that has been fixed in one of the patches? I hadn't really checked it since then. I do know that when I was writing the tech tree for 0.3 (oh so long ago :D) that it didn't matter whether you said that construction was posible or not. If that is true, then we can get rid of that class of transport all together since they aren't very useful. MDow
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
I understand using that workaround for units that can't be disabled, but it's possible to disable transport ships (IIRC, Brasil can't build transports in vanilla, Portugal couldn't either unitl some patch, and other countries can't either). Why not just disable them until the tech is researched?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's possible but it disables units permanently. Or at least it happened last time, when I tried to make tanks harder to reach from the start. :(
 
Originally posted by Phil K
Wonder if it's possible to use this command to stop UK, Japan, and USA from building transports into the 200's or so?
Click to expand...

Well, I always thought that AI is so lame with transport handling (100+ transport stacks roaming the seas), that huge number of ships is neccessary to keep it invading/transporting troops... :confused:
 
Originally posted by MateDow
Is that something that has been fixed in one of the patches? I hadn't really checked it since then. I do know that when I was writing the tech tree for 0.3 (oh so long ago :D) that it didn't matter whether you said that construction was posible or not. If that is true, then we can get rid of that class of transport all together since they aren't very useful. MDow
Click to expand...

It must have been. Playing as NatChi, I couldn't build transports at all until I had researched the techs for coastal steamers. Pushed my invasion of Japan back a whole year.
 
Originally posted by JRaup
It must have been. Playing as NatChi, I couldn't build transports at all until I had researched the techs for coastal steamers. Pushed my invasion of Japan back a whole year.
Click to expand...

Well, that is good to know. I especially like the part about being unable to mount an invasion of Japan by China :D That is realistic. MDow
 
Originally posted by MateDow
Well, that is good to know. I especially like the part about being unable to mount an invasion of Japan by China :D That is realistic. MDow
Click to expand...

It probably would have taken me longer if I hadn't joined the Allies. The slew of tech shares I got was rather nice, though the USA was quite stingy, even if I shared my wonderful super torpedoes with them...:p
 
I reported the transport disable not working bug. The problem was that while it disabled for the human, the AI could still build transports even without the tech. In other words the 'allowed = { transport = no }' was ignored for AI countries. Haven't tested it recently.
 
Well, I was going to say I tested it and it is working perfectly, but in light of that, I'd say further testing is required...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back