An 'andful of anomalies

[phoenixffyrnig]

1 the newest skin for assassin is completely invisible in gameplay

2 Axe Thrower's attack boni are about half of Elite Axe Thrower's boni. Is this intentional to improve the value of the upgrade?

3 Druid's Attack geass does not allow the unit to move after the attack, ie penalty is not removed after use.

4 Celtic Roundhouse and Primitive Veteran's Hut have a garrison of 2 and Construction affect of 90%, lower than the other faction buildings - for balancing purposes or a mismatch?

5 Hwacha
a) can attack "unattackable" items such as menhirs, thereby damaging enemy units that are beyond range
b) if attacking a mega building top right tile, all damage is targeted at bottom left tile and no splash damage given out

6 map editor roads placed over bridges block movement of ship units

[Endru1241]

1. Should have tested - sorry.
Unit visual definition have 32x32 image, but the one in skins is 32x64, so only upper tile is seen (which is empty).
I have fixed in the pack.

2. No. Axe thrower was supposed to be nerfed with lower bonuses (and possibility to maybe add some new ones if balance requires), but Elite Axe thrower was copying bonuses from swordsman, instead of axe thrower.
A mistake.
Fixed in the pack.

3. Do you mean, that there is still effect left on unit? Or it just doesn't have movement?
Happens always or only if unit was affected by it in previous turn (or enemy one)?

4. Construction affected should always be compared to hp for factories - 35 HP ones (among faction ones) should have 90% to reach exactly the same buidling time as 40 HP with 100%. So Primitive Veteran's Hut was set OK, but Celtic Roundhouse I have changed in the pack to 100%.
Garrison carry cap, heal rate, aura, attacks, additional abilities are all part of balancing the building (not very important for factories) and should be discussed in balancing subforum if you have some proposition for changes.

5. Both are how effects with SYSTEM_SPECIAL_EFFECT_TARGET_AND_AREA works. Imho a) is a feature.
b) is normally doing splash, but counting from bottom left tile! A little annoying - it's target and area effect issue - I send stratego report about that.

6. Roads should never be on a bridges. Actually these 3 bridge tiles are out of place, but I don't know what to do with them, so they are left like that.
To build proper road you have to take up to few meters of ground, fill with something hard (rocks, sand) and dense it up, so higher layers would be more stable. How do you imagine building a road on a bridge?
And road cannot allow ship movement ever, because building those would actually create a passes for ships like canals!


But thanks for taking your time to notice and write about issues.

[Endru1241]

And btw. "An 'andful of anomalies" - too much scotch?
It's "a handful of anomalies" for me.

[phoenixffyrnig]

2 Nice one.

3 If a unit is already in place, then attack Geass added then attack used, unit cannot move even though no movement was made. Only seen this with my own units so far, and the Geass symbol disappears as do the minus numbers in stats that show the penalties.

4 Cool, no problem with the Garrison size, was just odd that build times were different, thanks.

5 b) as far as I could tell, no splash damage was applied anywhere, only direct dam to the bottom left tile. I haven't tried any other variables such as aiming for middle bottom tile though.

6) yep, understand the logic. Would it be possible therefore to have bridge tiles in Map Editor that give the same movement boost as dirt roads and stone roads, yet also allow passage of water units underneath? Something along the lines of basic wooden bridge and substantial stone bridge? Or should bigger naval units be totally unable to pass under bridges...?

And btw. "An 'andful of anomalies" - too much scotch?
It's "a handful of anomalies" for me.

Although you are definitely correct, I will excuse myself guilt free in the name of artistic license - I fill the noble role of Warrior-poet

[Endru1241]

3. I may have imagined this worked a little different, but it's how engine works with restoring speed. Nothing to be done from assets.

5 b) Maybe there were no targets for splash? It's not doing splash on other tiles of mega.
In my tests it was splashing from left bottom corner.
Anyway there is a topic for the bug right now viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11548

6. In general I am against bridge tiles even existing. Those are terrain tiles. Unremovable.
Even some natural things are set as removable (with workforce) obstacles.
Bridges - as something human-made and not especially hard to damage should be on unit layer and destroyable.
Maybe some great, solid constructions could be on decoration layer, but being terrain - it doesn't fit.
For movement boost the same as road - use stone bridge.
There is nothing that copies stone road though.
If I'd have some concept and images of bridge that looks like something better than stone one - I'd add it like that.

As for flavour of ships moving through bridges - it really is purely for balance.

And btw. "An 'andful of anomalies" - too much scotch?
It's "a handful of anomalies" for me.

Although you are definitely correct, I will excuse myself guilt free in the name of artistic license - I fill the noble role of Warrior-poet

Aye, aye.

[phoenixffyrnig]

5b - further testing shows no splash damage irrespective of tile targeted. That is, no further damage to the building and nothing to nearby units either.

6 - worker built roads also seems to stop a Map Editor bridge from allowing water units to pass under. This could presumably be used to make an indestructible barrier to water units.

Possibly ditch the map editor bridge tiles (tbh they do look like old relics that the game has evolved way beyond) in favour of a no movement boost bridge, a slight movement boost bridge and a full movement boost bridge. Also give movement boost to worker built stone bridge (increase cost if necessary) and disable any road building on any bridge tile? This is more thinking ahead out loud than a suggestion atm, but I can foresee problems with things as they are.

Edit - I wrote this at the same time as you were writing your above reply, so read it more as an expansion of my last post rather than a response to yours.

[phoenixffyrnig]

6. In general I am against bridge tiles even existing. Those are terrain tiles. Unremovable.
Even some natural things are set as removable (with workforce) obstacles.
Bridges - as something human-made and not especially hard to damage should be on unit layer and destroyable.

Yup, fully agree with you here. Is that a change that could be made, new bridge tiles that could be neutral but also destroy-able?

[phoenixffyrnig]

How about having map editor bridge tiles classed as neutral buildings, would that work? Is it currently possible to have things that are actively attack-able but not targeted by auto-attack?

[Endru1241]

5b When targetting top right corner I get this results:


6. Neutrals are AI worse enemies. Even peaceful animals.
Unfortunately no matter what is put in unit specs it's always targetted by auto attack and AI.
Engine just lacks such option.

[Stratego (dev)]

shall i change AI not to attack is_terrain_entity type units?

[makazuwr32]

Ai can't attack trees and stone statues.

[Stratego (dev)]

those are IS_INATTACKABLE, tha is the reason.

[Endru1241]

shall i change AI not to attack is_terrain_entity type units?

IS_TERRAIN_ENTITY also consist of aggressive animals, which probably should be attacked.

Maybe new spec?
Something like "NOT_TARGETED_BY_AUTO_ATTACK", which would only remove it as possible target of auto-attack.

As for what should AI attack and what not - well, it should be weighted.
E.g. buildings with IS_TERRAIN_ENTITY spec shouldn't be a priority to go for an attack, unless it's placed on a route to the enemy, but on the other hand there is a lot of campaign maps, which depends on AI being overly aggressive.

In the future we should have some sort of possibility to split AI to more (e.g. aggressive, normal, defending), which some could not attack IS_GAIA_AI_ANIMAL_PEACEFUL, but I guess it's much bigger topic, requiring too much time of coding.

Maybe going with simple "NOT_TARGETED_BY_AI" is the best.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok new spec:
IS_INATTACKABLE_BY_AI, //AI logic will not attack this unit (nor the autoattack of player units)

consider implemented.

[Endru1241]

I set it to Mine and both bridges. - scratch that - too limited - it won't work.
Also - let's try how bridges will work if they are being occupiable.