WoC Suggestion Thread - NOT Specific Modules [Archive]

gegabitelord

Dec 07, 2007, 06:23 PM

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, if not point me in right direction :confused: , here goes;

I was Wondering if it's possible to put weather and other climate changes to the game like ice ages or volcanic eruptions that affect the entire planet in some way.

Say for instance it's 2021AD and you've discovered all the available technology and by some miracle your still a peace with the other powers on planet, believe it or not I have indeed found my self in such a place and this is usually the time I start a new game, because it just gets boring, maybe an ice age or some other international disaster could happen which would drive the major powers to war rather than me declaring war on an ally for no reason just to keep the game going.

And there's already a mod in BTS that uses the ice age idea in which as the ice age grows, land on the east side of mountains remains warm and fruitful while land on the west becomes a frozen wasteland, also maybe sea ice could grow as it gets colder locking up once open water ways, requiring you to make extensive use of ice breakers in order to move an invasion fleet around, but then in a few turns the ice will refreeze.

gegabitelord

Dec 11, 2007, 09:12 PM

And there's already a mod in BTS that uses the ice age idea in which as the ice age grows, land on the east side of mountains remains warm and fruitful while land on the west becomes a frozen wasteland, also maybe sea ice could grow as it gets colder locking up once open water ways, requiring you to make extensive use of ice breakers in order to move an invasion fleet around, but then in a few turns the ice will refreeze.

Oops didn't know part of this had already been added:crazyeye:

But I have another one now; what about making a module that caused tiles to randomly change to ice instead of desert? or could I do that my self?( not really sure how:confused: )

Fierabras

Dec 12, 2007, 06:28 AM

...also maybe sea ice could grow as it gets colder locking up once open water ways, requiring you to make extensive use of ice breakers in order to move an invasion fleet around, but then in a few turns the ice will refreeze.

"Sea ice" is a feature like Forest and Jungle and it's growth can be modded through XML easily. Land ice and desert are terrain graphics and are more tricky to mod. As I understand it, this can be done with either Python or SDK modding.

gegabitelord

Dec 13, 2007, 11:10 AM

"Sea ice" is a feature like Forest and Jungle and it's growth can be modded through XML easily. Land ice and desert are terrain graphics and are more tricky to mod. As I understand it, this can be done with either Python or SDK modding.

Yeah I was thinking that instead of tiles turning to desert in a nuke war, they turn to tundra then ice, also, speaking of nukes we need MAD in this mod:mischief:

ravenone

Dec 13, 2007, 11:21 AM

How about the ability for new islands to appear? Yes I know it takes a loooong time for volcanic islands to appear and be usefull, but it would be cool to see a new island pop up and all the leaders scramble to populate it first ! :)

Fierabras

Dec 13, 2007, 11:22 AM

You could do that with GlobalDefinesAlt.xml

<Define>
<DefineName>GLOBAL_WARMING_TERRAIN</DefineName>
<DefineTextVal>TERRAIN_DESERT</DefineTextVal>
</Define>

and change that to TERRAIN_TUNDRA, but if you want the transition from tundra to ice, it needs scripting (Python or SDK)

gegabitelord

Dec 13, 2007, 05:45 PM

You could do that with GlobalDefinesAlt.xml

and change that to TERRAIN_TUNDRA, but if you want the transition from tundra to ice, it needs scripting (Python or SDK)

Thanks for the info dude:D I just did it, as far as the Python and SDK go I'll just leave that to y'all:crazyeye:

Oh and something else! ( I know I'm just full of suggestions aren't I:lol: )
is there a way to allow barbs to build everything a normal civ can? I mean units and all, even wonders? and I would really like to be able to rename any civ any name I want at any time, and their leaders, all while in the game or the WB.

TAfirehawk

Dec 13, 2007, 06:43 PM

Thanks for the info dude:D I just did it, as far as the Python and SDK go I'll just leave that to y'all:crazyeye:

Oh and something else! ( I know I'm just full of suggestions aren't I:lol: )
is there a way to allow barbs to build everything a normal civ can? I mean units and all, even wonders? and I would really like to be able to rename any civ any name I want at any time, and their leaders, all while in the game or the WB.

Barbs can certainly be allowed everything....we added most things in ViSa for Warlords. It is a simple change to the civilizationinfos.xml and throw it into a Module.

GoodGame

Dec 17, 2007, 09:20 PM

On the weather patterns thing, someone had wanted to model actual weather fronts, and to that end came up with the idea of trying to store extra directional info on map tiles to represent wind patterns (windstreams) to carry the weather fronts. So perhaps the ability to store extra invisible data per grid coordinate ('tile') of the map. It could be vectors (indicating direction of wind through the tile, NE, E, N, etc...) for instance. That could also pave the way for seasonal tile variation on random map---e.g. a plains on a river could turn into a swamp or lake as the weather vectors drive a seasonal monsoon up onto it.

johny smith

Dec 20, 2007, 05:42 AM

Well I am not the person that would know the coding part. But here is something when you are talking about changing weather conditions you might want to look at. It was his attempt so far to put in global warming. Maybe something can be brought into the WoC later with it.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=254299

helpless_writer

Dec 26, 2007, 08:41 PM

can someone make it so itunes, windows media and other music players become intergrated in. So that we can skip or go back to old songs if not pause... while in full screen

helpless_writer

Dec 26, 2007, 08:59 PM

Another one btw... maybe if possible bring back the leader as an actual unit. The unit can only perhaps start a city... this can be good for when you wipe out a civilization but still wouldn't mind them returning

lord_joakim

Dec 29, 2007, 09:43 PM

Poland civ? (Should be found in here somewhere)
Polynesia? (Same)
You guys found more Civics?

mamba

Dec 31, 2007, 05:31 AM

gegabitelord

Dec 31, 2007, 10:11 AM

I noticed you included Ranged Bombardment (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=237316) and Inquisition (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=249392), did you consider Archery Barrage (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=254714), Bombing Missions (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=256522), Abandon / Raze Cities (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=252243) ?

Imo they would be welcome additions :)

:agree:Yes they would be.

mamba

Dec 31, 2007, 10:26 AM

TAfirehawk

Dec 31, 2007, 03:01 PM

And while I am at it, may I suggest a change to the directory structure ?

I noticed all art is in the Modules folder (e.g. Modules\Inquisition\Art) instead of in the Art folder (e.g. Art\Inquisition). This way it will be impossible (or at least more difficult) to create FPKs with the art. I like to create FPKs from my Art folder for faster loading, having the art spread all over the place won't make this any easier.

We used FPK's in ViSa and wanted to do that here as well, but it won't work in the "modular" concept without combining many unrelated things together.

So I totally understand the use and need of FPK's....but I don't see how it can be implemented in a truly modular system. As always we are open to any improvements to the system....especially before v1.00 release :)

TAfirehawk

Dec 31, 2007, 03:05 PM

mamba

Dec 31, 2007, 03:22 PM

We used FPK's in ViSa and wanted to do that here as well, but it won't work in the "modular" concept without combining many unrelated things together.

Speaking for the graphics, that is correct, but to me this doesn't matter much (at all actually).

To me the modular concept refers to xml and xml only. You could still keep the xml separate and plug / unplug it, the graphics simply remain in the FPK and won't get used if the corresponding xml is unplugged.

Instead of having Modules/<some-dir>/<yet-a-dir>/Art, why not go with Art/<somedir>/<yet-a-dir> ? That way you could put all art in an FPK with the module still remaining pluggable.

Yes, the space used up by graphics of deleted modules would still be used, but I do not consider this much of an issue and a worthwhile tradeoff for the gained loading speed.

TAfirehawk

Jan 01, 2008, 05:59 AM

Speaking for the graphics, that is correct, but to me this doesn't matter much (at all actually).

To me the modular concept refers to xml and xml only. You could still keep the xml separate and plug / unplug it, the graphics simply remain in the FPK and won't get used if the corresponding xml is unplugged.

Instead of having Modules/<some-dir>/<yet-a-dir>/Art, why not go with Art/<somedir>/<yet-a-dir> ? That way you could put all art in an FPK with the module still remaining pluggable.

Yes, the space used up by graphics of deleted modules would still be used, but I do not consider this much of an issue and a worthwhile tradeoff for the gained loading speed.

That is impossible because individual modules or small groups of modules will be separate downloads from the WoC Core and from themselves. To do what you want would require many, many extra MB's/GB's worth of downloads for every single person.....

BTW, the modular concept does NOT apply to just XML but the entire Civ game and every piece and part....just Firaxis doesn't allow everything yet, but they will eventually.

NikNaks

Jan 02, 2008, 01:32 PM

If you didn't know, mamba, Zebra 9 is working on a Python modular system, so it's all coming together :)

FlashAron

Jan 02, 2008, 01:45 PM

Hi there,

are you planning to include some World Maps with starting Positions and all resources ? Would be nice !

THX

TAfirehawk

Jan 02, 2008, 06:40 PM

Hi there,

are you planning to include some World Maps with starting Positions and all resources ? Would be nice !

THX

We have one already in.....Giant Earth Map.

We are doing our best to provide examples of everything that can be modded....our goal is NOT to do every mod but help all other modders adapt to the WoC Standard.

mamba

Jan 02, 2008, 07:01 PM

If you didn't know, mamba, Zebra 9 is working on a Python modular system, so it's all coming together :)

I read that a while ago, but I still have trouble even understanding how he wants to achieve that (but then I do not know Python) ;)

mamba

Jan 02, 2008, 07:29 PM

That is impossible because individual modules or small groups of modules will be separate downloads from the WoC Core and from themselves. To do what you want would require many, many extra MB's/GB's worth of downloads for every single person.....

Yes, that would be the logical conclusion of it, but then I also think that providing a large collection of units in a unified location as FPKs (for all modders to use) is preferable to the alternatives.
You could still have different FPKs based on some criteria (e.g. one for WW1 units another for WW2 units), but having a unified location and one common FPK is an advantage in my book, not a disadvantage.

To me there are basically only two alternatives to this.

Alternative 1 : all mods do still come with their own FPKs, which include 95% of the same units as the other mods. So everyone still has 5 versions of the same unit on the HD (but at least the loading time is still ok).

Alternative 2 : all mods come with their own units not stored in FPKs but following your convention, increasing the loading time by 5-10 times and with a little luck (*) actually storing them in the same path as the other mods do (thereby reducing / preventing the duplication of identical units).

(*) while you provide a path, there is no naming convention for the unit directories themselves, so one could call them Archer_England, the next EnglishArcher, the third England/Archer and so on

About the only case where this is preferable is for a user who only wants a handful of new units and 2 new civs, for anyone wanting to plug in a large mod like Varietas Delectat, Wolfshanze Mod, Diversica etc., having FPKs is far preferable imo.

And given todays internet connection and HD sizes, downloading somewhere between 200 and 500 MB of FPKs does not even require a second thought.

To me the only questions here would be, what is a sensible structure within the FPK, what criteria to use to separate the different FPKs (and what units to put in each) and who creates them ;)

TAfirehawk

Jan 02, 2008, 07:59 PM

mamba,

My current thoughts are to divide up the FPK's in Unit Categories as we have defined from Firaxis and is the folder structure we are using.

FPK's will be a refinement we will look at after v1.00

Trust me, nobody knows the usefulness of FPK's better than I do....just look at the super-sized ViSa expansion pack we did for Warlords, 958MB.

mamba

Jan 03, 2008, 04:27 AM

Fine by me, I'd probably go with Art/Custom/ and then the Firaxis dir structure, i.e.

Interface/Buttons/Buildings
Interface/Buttons/TechTree
(and maybe add some like Resources or Leaderheads)

Leaderheads/<leader>

Terrain/Resources/<resource>

Units/<unit-package?>/<unit-subpackage?>/<unit>

with the structure within units probably needing the most though, so they can be broken into separate FPKs. Probably by era or type (Naval, Air, Armored, like you did with "Custom Units").

imo there also should be some naming conventions established to make mixing of mods easier.

E.g. all civ-specific unit art styles should be named like the civ, e.g. UNIT_ARTSTYLE_ENGLAND (to allow mixing units from several mods easily, if one mod would call the english artstyle UNIT_ARTSTYLE_ENGLISH instead, this would not work without changing xml yet again)

and probably some others to allow for an easier mixing and matching of stuff from several mods.

For my mod I also separated "Custom Units" from "Custom UnitArtstyles" (in your example you placed both xml files in "Custom Units").

I did so as there are several units used by multiple civs and some units which only have a *CIV4UnitArtStyleTypeInfos.xml file but no corresponding *CIV4ArtDefines_Unit.xml file as they are defined by CIV (for a scenario) already.

I also found this cleaner than to place all the *CIV4UnitArtStyleTypeInfos.xml files for the different civs in the "Custom Units" dir, as now I have one place to look up what units get used by a civ instead of having that info spread all over the place (it is still one file per unit though).

I am not sure whether this is actually preferable or whether to be correct here, one should create separate units for the seperate civs, even though they use the same art. The later would allow for easier adding / removing of units as it still can be done per dir whereas the split into unit and unitartstyle would require changes in two places. But from what I understand you want to provide some way of specifying such dependencies and then this might no longer be an issue (looking forward to that).

I also noted that you did not break down some mods further, e.g. in Inquisition, you have many units (one per religion) instead of splitting them into separate Custom Units. Is this because you cannot yet define dependencies, or will this always remain like that ?

I am wondering whether I should split some stuff up even further, e.g. my modular version of the NextWar mod is currently one directory, but it could be 10 techs, 5 buildings and 7 unitclasses (or something like that) instead.

I would look forward to truly breaking the mod boundaries and having it in the latter form (instead of having either all or none of NextWar in the game), but then we would need some way of telling the system what dependencies there are, so you do not accidently remove all units for a tech (or the tech for units you still keep around) etc.

So I guess for the time being it should remain one dir. What is your take on this ?

TAfirehawk

Jan 03, 2008, 05:44 PM

mamba,

The "Arts" are to use the exact same folder structure as Firaxis, just within the Modules folder....we have modified the code to allow relative art paths so bringing a mod into the WoC won't require changing all the paths in the XML. Of course this hurts the FPK concept but in the end that will probably need to be addressed with Firaxis once they "get on board" with a truly modular system.

We have a separate Art Style folder....if some units are not in there it is just that we haven't gotten to them yet.

Inquisition is a mod by itself and thus has the units within it....you don't play with just one Inquisitor and not the others and you don't get all the Inquisitors without the rest of the module. There really is a reason for everything we have put in place....but I will be the first to admit that we haven't covered all the bases yet and that is why dialog with all modders like yourself will turn the WoC Standard into something Firaxis can adopt relatively quickly.

Breaking up mods is a core concept and one of the most difficult to implement. The basic idea is that if a unit/building/etc can be used stand-alone then it needs broke out into the Custom Unit/Building/etc folder. The Inquisition is a perfect example of units that must remain with the mod....the Navy mod was broken up because those units are not dependent on other Navy mod code.

At the same time, dependencies are a real nightmare right now because we are turning all modules on/off manually. But once we have the WoC Module Chooser (aka front end program) that will have an XML checker and at least warn the player of dependencies if not automatically select the needed dependencies. For now we have been modifying the SDK so the game doesn't CTD with missing dependencies....so the game won't play quite right but it won't crash either, which is the best we can do until v2.00

mamba

Jan 03, 2008, 06:35 PM

The "Arts" are to use the exact same folder structure as Firaxis, just within the Modules folder....we have modified the code to allow relative art paths so bringing a mod into the WoC won't require changing all the paths in the XML. Of course this hurts the FPK concept but in the end that will probably need to be addressed with Firaxis once they "get on board" with a truly modular system.

I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have a solution now which supports FPKs. What is wrong with putting art in Art/Custom and then the Firaxis structure ? Sure, the art will stay around even when the mod is unplugged, but hey, I much prefer that over not being able to have an FPK ;)

So I will definitely go that route with my mod.

How are your talks with Firaxis about them "getting on board" progressing ? Will they incorporate WoC in the next (or a latter) patch ? are they at least sufficiently interested to see how this turns out ?

Inquisition is a mod by itself and thus has the units within it....you don't play with just one Inquisitor and not the others and you don't get all the Inquisitors without the rest of the module.

True, however if I were to add another religion, I would need an inquisitor for that religion as well. So while it is true that I do not want less inquisitors than provided by the Inquisition mod, I might actually be in need of more inquisitors.

Where would I then put that inquisitor, in the Inquisition mod or as a Custom Unit ? Apparently the former as he requires the mod to function properly.

Breaking up mods is a core concept and one of the most difficult to implement.

Very true ;)

The basic idea is that if a unit/building/etc can be used stand-alone then it needs broke out into the Custom Unit/Building/etc folder. The Inquisition is a perfect example of units that must remain with the mod....the Navy mod was broken up because those units are not dependent on other Navy mod code.

What if a unit is dependent on a new tech I introduced ? Do I place it with the tech then ?

At the same time, dependencies are a real nightmare right now because we are turning all modules on/off manually. But once we have the WoC Module Chooser (aka front end program) that will have an XML checker and at least warn the player of dependencies if not automatically select the needed dependencies.

How will it check for dependencies ? does it traverse the xml to check if everything required is actually found (and probably also the unplugged modules to find the missing ones if something is missing) or do we provide some dependency info for the checker to verify against ?

What about some 'soft' dependencies, e.g. we probably will need to shuffle some techs around (x and y grid) when introducing new techs, so they are not placed on top of each other, esp. with several modders all introducing new techs and putting them in the same blank spots. Could something like this actually be checked (well of course it could, but would it) ?

Actually I believe the only way to arrive at a truly pluggable tech tree is to simply ignore the x and y grid outright and create a graph based on the requirements of each tech. Are you trying to do something along those lines ?

For now we have been modifying the SDK so the game doesn't CTD with missing dependencies....so the game won't play quite right but it won't crash either, which is the best we can do until v2.00

That is already pretty good, provided it tells me about what it missed so we can fix those errors.

rockinroger

Jan 03, 2008, 06:59 PM

We have a Zoroarastrian Inquisitor and Missionary that is in the library/custom units/special and the buildings for the religion are in library/custom buildings. Right now working on getting the Religion found nif and the Shrine_Zoro_dwg_512.dds, to work correctly. That part has been frustrating for sure.

FlashAron

Jan 04, 2008, 10:40 AM

Hi there,

sorry to ask, but I couldn't find the "Giant Earth Map" for WoC ... and also "Ghenghis the maker of the map" didn't know anything. Even I got Version 4.1 of the original Giant Earth Map working, of course there are not the extra resources included ... is it still not released ?
Or where could I download it ?

(Of course I could start World Builder after I have started the game and put them in, but how many and where ? )

How is the status at the moment ?

Thank you

TAfirehawk

Jan 04, 2008, 05:25 PM

FlashAron

Jan 05, 2008, 02:33 AM

It is on the SVN.....not v.90

V.95 will be out next week hopefully :)

Thank you for your answer, I am using SVN and found it now in the Modules directory ... how could I activate it, as I couldnt find it in the maps, scenarios and so on (of course after loading the Woc Mod :-)

Where do I activate all the modules ?
Do I have to change that file ?
MLF_CIV4ModularLoadingControls.xml

Anyway, thank you for all your work !

Hmmm ... it is even there

<Module>
<Directory>Custom Maps</Directory>
<bLoad>1</bLoad>
</Module>

Where should it normal show up ?
THX

TAfirehawk

Jan 05, 2008, 08:28 PM

It is the last scenario on the list....I don't know why the proper name doesn't show yet....

Everything in the Modules folder loads....everything not in there does not :)

TAfirehawk

Jan 06, 2008, 09:55 AM

mamba,

Load time for BtS is 15 seconds and the current WoC Modules is 32 seconds. Of course I have a pretty fast system so others will take longer....but I will also go test it on my slower P4 laptop to be sure.

The FPK issue will be addressed when needed....hopefully people will start using the WoC Modules SVN so I will have plenty of things to 'stress test' the loading with :)

modusoperandi

Jan 06, 2008, 07:47 PM

Is it possible to modify spies so that they can steal resources? Say, for example, a neighboring civ has oil and you don't; position a spy on their oil, spend a pile of espionage points, and you then have access to that resource for a certain number of turns.

Emperor Justinian had monks smuggle silk worms from central Asia to Constantinople. Consequently, the Byzantines were able to produce silk on their own and no longer relied on foreign trade to acquire it. Is there a way to incorporate this concept into WoC? Say you steal a resource (that requires a plantation) so many times, or have a spy physically "steal" a sample and return it to your capital (with increased risk of being caught), and as a reward you earn permanent access to the resource?

Just some ideas. :)

lord_graywolfe

Jan 09, 2008, 10:36 AM

i was looking at Dales new combat mod and it looks really cool and sounds like it would be a great addition to any mod but if i read it right he did most of his changes in the DLL. now doesnt that make it pretty hard to add into other mods as it will overwrite the exsisting Dll which may contain other nessery files for the mod such as Bluemarble. i mean his will work great in the exsisting modular system but can it work with WoC modular loading? im just curious as i dont know much beyond the XML coding.

another question would it be possible to put some of the new ideas into the game full time and then just have the option on a menu to turn them off or on so people arent picking through mods trying to find what they are looking for? i know that will result in a much larger file size but its just a thought

mamba

Jan 09, 2008, 10:54 AM

i was looking at Dales new combat mod and it looks really cool and sounds like it would be a great addition to any mod but if i read it right he did most of his changes in the DLL. now doesnt that make it pretty hard to add into other mods as it will overwrite the exsisting Dll which may contain other nessery files for the mod such as Bluemarble. i mean his will work great in the exsisting modular system but can it work with WoC modular loading? im just curious as i dont know much beyond the XML coding.

Blue Marble doesn't require any dll changes, so it will work with Blue Marble without problems. WoC otoh does require a different dll, so if you use WoC formatted xml you cannot replace the WoC dll with Dale's dll.

Dale's code could be combined with the WoC code (and I sure hope it will be) to have a dll which supports both the WoC format and Dale's changes.

lord_graywolfe

Jan 09, 2008, 11:03 AM

ok thats cool, thats why i asked cause i didnt know how that would work.

i do have another question though, may not be the right place for it but anyway

im reworking my mod to make it work with WoC, now i changed all the leaders to 3 traits and in some cases it wasnt just adding a third trait i changed thier old ones as well, but when i make them do i need to make a new file for each of the leaders? or do i just make a file with the trait changes? if its the later im not sure how i would do that.

mamba

Jan 09, 2008, 11:31 AM

Others should comment on this as well, but my understanding is that you would make one file per leader and in that file would ONLY have the trait changes.

E.g.

<LeaderHeadInfo>
<Type>LEADER_BRENNUS</Type>
<Traits>
whatever trait to add
</Traits>
</LeaderHeadInfo>

As to actually changing traits (instead of adding ones), that is the part I am not sure of. I do not know whether you can actually replace <TraitType>s within <Traits> and not just add ones given the WoC format (I have asked that question before, for a different tag, but have not gotten an answer yet)

lord_graywolfe

Jan 09, 2008, 12:36 PM

ok i think i got it, but ill wait untill we have an answer about changing exsisting ones before i start on it.

Galadrion

Jan 09, 2008, 06:54 PM

TAfirehawk

Jan 09, 2008, 09:45 PM

Blue Marble doesn't require any dll changes, so it will work with Blue Marble without problems. WoC otoh does require a different dll, so if you use WoC formatted xml you cannot replace the WoC dll with Dale's dll.

Dale's code could be combined with the WoC code (and I sure hope it will be) to have a dll which supports both the WoC format and Dale's changes.

The plan is to incorporate as many mods into the DLL as is humanly possible.

Others should comment on this as well, but my understanding is that you would make one file per leader and in that file would ONLY have the trait changes.

E.g.

<LeaderHeadInfo>
<Type>LEADER_BRENNUS</Type>
<Traits>
whatever trait to add
</Traits>
</LeaderHeadInfo>

As to actually changing traits (instead of adding ones), that is the part I am not sure of. I do not know whether you can actually replace <TraitType>s within <Traits> and not just add ones given the WoC format (I have asked that question before, for a different tag, but have not gotten an answer yet)

Each tag like this must be looked at individually, so there is no "global" answer except that each will be fixed as we are told about them.

Traits specifically, I am not sure why a separate file for each leaderhead would be created. I haven't looked at it yet, but in my mind what is happening here is a "Trait Mod" and it belongs in its own module with just the Traits tags.

TAfirehawk

Jan 09, 2008, 09:47 PM

Let's see... how about the Immigrant unit? That was one I wanted for ViSa, and it never quite got to the working stage.

Sea Settlers and Sea Engineers, that was another good set of game components.

Perhaps some way to move religious Shrines - you build a "Holy Pilgrimage" unit in the Holy City (and it can only be built in a Holy City with the religion's shrine), at which point it removes the Shrine and the city's "holy" status. Move the unit to another city which shares the appropriate religion, use it there, and it makes that city the religion's holy city, complete with shrine. No combat value on the unit, so if it's attacked it's captured (like a worker), and the attacker can use it if he/she has the appropriate religion in a city. It could even be used to reestablish the Holy City and Shrine in a foreign city, if the controller wanted to do that for some reason.

All of that sounds good to me....but again for everybody, we are not making a mod here, but a modding platform/standard on which all other BtS modders can develop things in a way that nearly everything will work together and let the player choose the individual parts on an individual game basis.

We will be releasing quite a few Modules over the coming months, but even the large WoC Team can't keep up with everything done on CFC for BtS....

esemjay

Jan 30, 2008, 05:53 PM

TAfirehawk

Jan 30, 2008, 07:21 PM

I love the system you guys are making, and I'm trying to convert some of my favorite mods to this fashion so I can use them. Unfortunately, the load times are absolutely horrendous on my system.

I was able to launch Firefox, navigate to this page through Google, bring it up, skim the thread (did a search for "World of Civilization" "Loading Time", then Ctrl+F "loading"), and then as I started writing, the mod finally launched. I am only running 1GB of Ram, and onboard video that shares (I think) 64MB of that RAM, but that would be the only reason I wouldn't use this system.

On the bright side, I'm glad to see that the loading speed is being looked into; it would really make my day if I could play WoC as quickly as some of the newer systems. :D

Depending on exactly which version you have....it is really slow or will be faster....

Ingame speed for players will be just fine, but right now we have been using debug and logger DLL's that are VERY slow loading and playing.....remember we have not released V1.00 yet so don't judge it just yet :)

BTW, BtS itself loads very slow when I reboot as well....not as slow as the WoC, but what can you expect from a system that will give you the choice to change nearly any and all components of any mod in any game!!!!

esemjay

Jan 30, 2008, 08:00 PM

Depending on exactly which version you have....it is really slow or will be faster....

Ingame speed for players will be just fine, but right now we have been using debug and logger DLL's that are VERY slow loading and playing.....remember we have not released V1.00 yet so don't judge it just yet :)

BTW, BtS itself loads very slow when I reboot as well....not as slow as the WoC, but what can you expect from a system that will give you the choice to change nearly any and all components of any mod in any game!!!!

That would definitely explain it!

I'm sorry to be of trouble, but could you tell me how to get the current "fast loading" version? I don't have a need for "debug" mode, since I can't tell the difference between a "bug" and my computer just being crappy sometimes. Intel onboard video does some weird things with graphics.

:EDIT:

Okay, I just finished getting the SVN version, and it is a lot faster; but whenever I try to boot it up, I keep getting loading errors. I went ahead and ignored the first couple errors, but eventually I got tired of clicking "Ignore" and just hit "Abort." I noticed that a lot of the modules in the SVN's "modules" folder are not like the installer I got previously (Earlier this week) and I'm just curious if it has anything to do with that. The only concrete differences I've seen between the two thus far are:

1. The SVN loads MUCH faster. (I want to use it)
2. The SVN has modularized MLF_CIV4ModularLoadingControls.xml
3. The SVN has a lot less "Unit" modules than the one I have been trying to use.

Am I using the wrong version again? (Perhaps the Development version, not the Release?) If so, how can I tell the Devel from the Release?

:clueless:

Sinapus

Feb 01, 2008, 05:19 PM

wrong forum...

TAfirehawk

Feb 02, 2008, 05:25 PM

That would definitely explain it!

I'm sorry to be of trouble, but could you tell me how to get the current "fast loading" version? I don't have a need for "debug" mode, since I can't tell the difference between a "bug" and my computer just being crappy sometimes. Intel onboard video does some weird things with graphics.

:EDIT:

Okay, I just finished getting the SVN version, and it is a lot faster; but whenever I try to boot it up, I keep getting loading errors. I went ahead and ignored the first couple errors, but eventually I got tired of clicking "Ignore" and just hit "Abort." I noticed that a lot of the modules in the SVN's "modules" folder are not like the installer I got previously (Earlier this week) and I'm just curious if it has anything to do with that. The only concrete differences I've seen between the two thus far are:

1. The SVN loads MUCH faster. (I want to use it)
2. The SVN has modularized MLF_CIV4ModularLoadingControls.xml
3. The SVN has a lot less "Unit" modules than the one I have been trying to use.

Am I using the wrong version again? (Perhaps the Development version, not the Release?) If so, how can I tell the Devel from the Release?

:clueless:

Currently the SVN has a serious load error from Firaxis....we have contacted them and they are assisting us as they can with their limited Civ schedule right now. It is not you....you can delete some MLF's in the Units and Wonders to get everything in Assets to load if you wish....fixes are coming :)