Civs in RtR: Thread 2

[Charriu]

1 is actually codeable in the XML now.

2 and 3 require significant SDK coding and new XML tag creation.

4 is codeable with what exists now, but I'm not certain.

I don't even know how 5 would be coded, but it reinforces SoD strategies so I think is just a bad idea full stop.

I think 6 is just a variable in the unitinfos. 7 definitely is on a per unit basis, just look at chariots and the Persian Immortal.

8 and 9 are right out/holyhandgrenade.

10 is codeable via the XML.


6 is the only one that isn't introducing massive changes, which are outside what mechanics already exist.

Thanks for the info. I did not intend 5 to be a bonus rather a malus. 8 and 9 I totally agree are too strong. I was just curious.

Jag with Formation sounds interesting. Some other UU could get Woodsman then (I'm looking at you Native Americans).

[Krill]

I've got a list of some civs that just need outright rebuilding from the ground up. NA, India, Japan...

8 and 9 are just XML tags in the unitinfos file, any unit can have them.

[superdeath]

Im still hopeful someone can get a UU settler..

[Old Harry]

Charriu - 2&3 - does the March promo do a similar job?

SD - a Fall From Heaven settler?  That'd be awesome...

Krill - Aztecs are the only civ to win more than one RtR pitboss aren't they?

[Krill]

Yeah, but UU were never used at any point and one of those games didn't even use slavery.

[superdeath]

Something as simple as a base 75 hammer settler, or settler with mobility? ( i think thats the promo ) would be nice to give one of the new reworked civs. Whats the next civ on the list?

[Krill]

We need to look at Native America and it needs a complete rebuild.

I don't know if it is possible to code a settler as a unique unit. I'll have to check if the imp production bonus is in the unitinfos file, on the specific unit.

[Charriu]

I personally don't like a UU settler. The cost reduction is basically a free Imp trait, which is probably the reason why Krill is looking for the unitinfo. This sounds a bit strong too me. The mobility promo is not that great. But my main problem is that the settler is used in such a short timespan. It just feels like a wasted opportunity for something interesting that could be used more often.

[Krill]

There is one way of looking at it, that if you squint enough it kind of makes sense.

Some UB are simply an earlier version of the basic building, or have a simple cost decrease. Ziggarut, Garden. You only build one per city for these buildings. Why is it not unreasonable to do the same with a settler? Of course it must not be affected by IMP, and the hammer cost would likely need to be about 80 hammers, but it lowers the threshold for a double whip to 30 hammers, which is comparable to IMP needing about 17 base hammers.

It is worth considering, because the civs themselves are being buffed to a point where they are comparable to a trait, and early game civs can be used to bring double late game trait leaders into use. Is the cheap settler worth considering in this context, if the UB helps to provide interestingness? Earlier I was very much against the idea, but I can see the point of this.

[Krill]

Or just make a 100 hammer monument that provides a settler on completion as the UB.

Edit: to be clear, that is not actually possible without SDK modding, so is out.