An Interesting Discovery

William Keenan · March 25, 2001, 10:23

After shifting around some units in the rule.txt I loaded the ToT scenario I have been working on and to my surprise I found that one of the civs could not build its defensive units. None of the usual suspects we to blame, they had the prerequisite tech, the they did not have the obsolescence tech, there were not better units to build in the same role. Next I checked the tribe can build mask but that was right to. So what could then be the matter? I was quite baffled.

Since these units were buildable prior to shifting unit slots around it stood to reason that this was the cause of the problem.

The following quote from the Advanced Scenario Design paper provided the beginning of the answer to this dilemma.

quote:

allowing the unit in the Musketeers position to be built. No defensive air, sea, or land unit, with a defense less than that of this unit, of any speed, can ever afterwards be built, by either a human or a computer player of that civilization.

This a first seemed implausible since the unit in the musketeer slot was not buildable by the civ in question. In fact the unit was only created via events. None-the-less, I reduced its defense to one, reloaded the game and shazam! The defensive units could again be built. With a little more research the true rule came to light.

Upon discovering Gunpowder defensive (role=1) units with a defense factor less then the unit in the musketeer slot become obsolete.

kobayashi · March 26, 2001, 07:24

Yes, after testing, I can vouch that the gun powder rule is true. I am going to add a unit in the musketter slot in my current scenario and drop gunpowder from the tech tree.

Do you by any chance know what is the trigger advance for the knight slot limitations?

Henrik · March 26, 2001, 09:34

Could it be chivalry?

techumseh · March 26, 2001, 15:10

Chivalry? Are you suggesting that William be knighted for this? So far it's gunpowder only. Perhaps it's just a flash in the pan.

William Keenan · March 26, 2001, 16:42

quote:

Originally posted by techumseh on 03-26-2001 02:10 PM
Chivalry? Are you suggesting that William be knighted for this? So far it's gunpowder only. Perhaps it's just a flash in the pan.

rotflmao!

William Keenan · March 26, 2001, 16:47

quote:

Originally posted by kobayashi on 03-26-2001 06:24 AM
Yes, after testing, I can vouch that the gun powder rule is true. I am going to add a unit in the musketter slot in my current scenario and drop gunpowder from the tech tree.

Do you by any chance know what is the trigger advance for the knight slot limitations?

Thanks for the verification, Kobayashi. What version did you use? I was using ToT.

I'm not sure about the knight slot yet, but I'm guessing Chivalry at this point.

Dropping Gunpowder? I guess your not using barbarians in your scenario.

kobayashi · March 27, 2001, 03:29

I tried it using civ2. As soon as gunpowder is discovered, the premature obsolesence kicks in. I have an aircraft in the knight slot and it doesn't seem to have any side effects at all.

William Keenan · March 27, 2001, 10:16

Yeah, I've not been able to trigger the knight slot either. Try switching the air unit (in the knight slot) movement to two, see if that does it.

kobayashi · April 27, 2001, 00:00

It's been a while since the last post on this thread. I've finally identified some info on what happens when you put an Aircraft in the Knight Slot. From what I know, when the Knight appears, it makes units weaker than it obsolete (skipping all the details here) and drop off the production menu.

Seems in the case of an Air Domain Knight, all aircraft with a weaker attack, irrespective of their roles will stop being produced by the AI. However, the strange thing is that the 'weaker aircraft' are not obsolete and stay on the production menu - meaning human players can still build them.

p.s. this is only a theory from observation and not fully tested.
[This message has been edited by kobayashi (edited April 26, 2001).]

kobayashi · April 27, 2001, 03:41

Opps, the above is not true. From further testing, it seems that what I observed above was just pure coincidence.