View Full Version : Dune Wars 1.9 Final Release Feedback


Deliverator
Nov 22, 2010, 12:03 PM
This thread is for feedback on Dune Wars 1.9.1 and its patches, prior to the eventual release of Dune Wars 2.0.

The latest full version of Dune Wars is version 1.9.1 (http://www.mediafire.com/?ovktueja83qoczo). (I know that it looks like a patch for 1.9, but it's not.)

The latest patch is Dune Wars 1.9.2, see here for more information (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10437200&postcount=141).

This is a patch for Dune Wars 1.9.1 (http://www.mediafire.com/?ovktueja83qoczo). If you have an earlier version (including 1.9), uninstall it and install the linked 1.9.1 first. If in doubt, delete your Mods/Dune Wars folder and start again with DW 1.9.1.

Deliverator
Nov 22, 2010, 12:03 PM
WORK LIST
-----------

General

+ Forest feature was intended to give +1 hammers. In beta 2 at least, it isn't. Its only in grassland sinks, its designed to be a production compensation for the hammer removal from grassland, and to make sure that sink tiles are still superior even once terraformed. - DONE

+ Investigate raising unit maintenance - Partially done

+ Obsolete Improvements

+ Building Infos - FFH2 - RemovePromotion - Poorly Maintained

+ Axolotl tanks - Immortality

+ I wonder if we should also consider increasing the tile yields of bonus resources (iron, nitrates, crystal, etc) for the higher end mines, since in general you'll only have the advanced mines on the bonus resources, so they're pretty lame with just the +1 extra bonus.

+ Review this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=404216).

+ Role Playing Game Option

+ Atomics reworking - link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=404058)

+ Mentat redesign (CityBonuses - Decimals?)

+ Reduce Monitor cost

+ Genetic manipulation tech seems like it should be required for the Kwizatz Haderach. Can we add is as a secondary requirement for the 3rd and 4th Kwizatz projects?

+ final pass over faction balance/differentiation - Link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=378226)
- Ordos:
Could we have an Ordos UB somewhere that gave some extra EPs,
Maybe a University replacement? Or a Bank replacement? Something that emphasizes their techno-raider mercenary theme.

+ Have civilizations decide at the beginning of each game whether they are going to pursue Arrakis Paradise or Arrakis Spice for that game. Give each leader a pro-Spice probability to control this:
Never adopt Paradise: Bene Gesserits, Ecaz
80/20 spice: Corrino, Harkonnen, Ix, Ordos
80/20 paradise: Leto I, Alia, Tleilaxu?, others?
Never adopt spice: Liet-Kynes, Stilgar, Leto II, Muad'Dib

+ Fremen Sietch improvement to be built on Caves - something like +1 water, +1 hammer, +1 commerce, +1 population at nearest city (no net water cost), very long build time.

+ Strengthen Thinking Machines religion and make more interesting
- All the Thinking Machine stuff is clustered. How about we add Research labs as an And requirement for the Computerized research lab?

+ Sandstorms - Thopters - bigger sandstorms

+ Leto II -> Adaptive Trait?

+ conscription from buildings - Razzia Command - Jihad Veterans Barracks

Art/Pedia/Text
+ Worker Unitclass Icon
+ Replace Water based action icons
+ Switch Ducal Guard graphics - Fall Further technique
+ Update Hints
+ More logical Improvement Shortcuts
+ Make Diamond,etc disappear when mine built
+ Beesting/Wasp Interceptor graphic very annoying.

Documentation

+ Great Processor hammers
+ Fremen free Sayyadina
+ Religious trait free great prophet
+ Tech tree arrows
+ I hope espionage will get more thorough documentation and its own entry in the Dune Wars Concepts section.

Bugs / Issues

+ I can verify that interceptors loaded on suspensor carriers can't be set to intercept.

Bugs from 1.8 - still valid?

+ No-Ships Bug: currently displaces all defending units from their city / which displaces all defending units from their city

+ AI trades Goods for nothing? sapho juice, ginaz and groundwater

+ Annex Crash:
- Crashed a few times for me. Each time it was caused by attempting to use Annex. Annex does not, however, always crash (even in the same game, reload, annex same city on a later turn).

+ Observed several bugs with saboteurs and facedancers in V1.8 like preparation promo not working, messages "saboteur/facedancer" captured" (which kinda reveals which civ send them) or messages like "an Infiltrator ... capture near the Ordos city of Ordos" (instead of actual city names).

+ Check: If spice silos aren't disappearing when you switch out of Spice, then that's a bug that should be corrected.

+ BG:
But I think there is a known bug with it. It should immediately give the AI the city even if they didn't have any military units conquered in it.
Its something to be aware of; you can't ignore espionage in this game. The ability is incredibly expensive (they have to build up thousands of EP) so having some EPs invested against the BG will help protect you from this by increasing their costs out of reach.

strategynoob
Nov 24, 2010, 10:11 AM
Hi, I have played some 1.8 and really enjoyed it. I didn't know 1.9 was out! I will download and send feedback as soon as I can!

Thank you for this great mod!

Ahriman
Nov 24, 2010, 10:22 AM
Could we have some debate/discussion over the hard-coded diplomacy vendetta values?
This feels too strong to me, and too limiting in forcing particular strategies. For example, playing as Atreides I am forced into having both Corrino and Harkonnen as perpetual enemies. I can't for example play as a good loyal subject of the Corrino Emperor, or effectively follow a diplomatic strategy.
If people like it in general then I'll shut up about it, but it would be good to here what people think. I think I prefer being able to choose my enemies.

As a compromise, we could keep the Harkonnen vendetta but remove the Corrino one.

The other thing I'd add for discussion/consideration: events. We spent a while on event brainstorming, and could easily come up with more.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=377523
Deliverator is this something you'd consider coding? Are others interested in seeing these?

Jester Fool
Nov 24, 2010, 12:41 PM
Could we have some debate/discussion over the hard-coded diplomacy vendetta values?
This feels too strong to me, and too limiting in forcing particular strategies. For example, playing as Atreides I am forced into having both Corrino and Harkonnen as perpetual enemies. I can't for example play as a good loyal subject of the Corrino Emperor, or effectively follow a diplomatic strategy.
If people like it in general then I'll shut up about it, but it would be good to here what people think. I think I prefer being able to choose my enemies.I like the vendetta values, however, IMO, if possible, it would be better to make this an option (House Vendettas?) - e.g. raging barbarians, victory conditions etc. A side benefit would be to enhance the replayability of Dune Wars (for the reason Ahriman states above).The other thing I'd add for discussion/consideration: events. We spent a while on event brainstorming, and could easily come up with more. Deliverator is this something you'd consider coding? Are others interested in seeing these?Events should be included (really the only thing I can think of that is needed to make the mod *complete*).

Ahriman
Nov 24, 2010, 02:27 PM
I like the vendetta values, however, IMO, if possible, it would be better to make this an option (House Vendettas?) - e.g. raging barbarians, victory conditions etc.
I like this. I'm generally against just making things options, but this seems like a very logical option to me; some people might prefer playing a more RP style, some might not.

If we're doing something like this, we could even extend it. We could have a "canon roleplay" option which forces a bunch of canon decisions, like forcing preference for Spice vs Paradise, forcing preferred religion adoption (so factions will always adopt a preferred religion if possible, over all others) and the vendettas.

* * *
Another note: I thought the intention for the Atreides promotions "Ducal guard" etc, were that these were a free option that didn't take up a normal promotion slot. As currently implemented, they take a promotion slot.

Deliverator
Nov 25, 2010, 08:23 AM
I like this. I'm generally against just making things options, but this seems like a very logical option to me; some people might prefer playing a more RP style, some might not.

Making this a game option seems to be the popular choice. I did soften the effect by approximately 50% between 1.9 Beta II and 1.9 Final.

Another note: I thought the intention for the Atreides promotions "Ducal guard" etc, were that these were a free option that didn't take up a normal promotion slot. As currently implemented, they take a promotion slot.

You mean that the promotions should cost zero experience points? I think that is doable via an XML change. I'll try it out.

davidlallen
Nov 25, 2010, 12:45 PM
IMHO it may be confusing to have some free promotions, which you still have to select. There are other promotions which are automatically granted; this is fine, because those never show as available to a unit with enough experience. If there is a free promotion granted by some tech, then every unit regardless of experience is "available" for a promotion. But only that promotion.

I can see a RP argument that the promotion should be free; once you get the tech, you as leader of your civ appoint the N number of units you want in your guard. But from a gameplay perspective, it seems confusing to have only one promotion follow this model.

Ahriman
Nov 25, 2010, 04:07 PM
You mean that the promotions should cost zero experience points?
Yes. Though this may entail reducing the #cap of them available.

The idea was for Atreides to have a small core of superior infantry. They aren't really that superior if you have to give up a promotion slot for the +1 strength, so they don't quite meet their design purpose.

I don't see it as that confusing, no more so than any other mechanic. Remember that they're limited to only melee/guardsmen. Its pretty obvious to players, because it becomes a selectable promotion even when no other promotions are available.
Having them selected rather than automatic allows the player to choose which units are their core - important if they want to make sure they're on a melee unit (because they're going to follow a melee-oriented strategy) or a guardsman unit. And they might want to put them on units already highly promoted. So there's a minor and fun strategic option opened by making them selectable.

appoint the N number of units you want in your guard
And these units are led and trained by the handful of Superior personalities attracted to work for the Atreides out of love/loyalty (Hawat, Idaho, etc.). Which was what we were trying to model.

Ahriman
Nov 27, 2010, 08:08 AM
I've noticed something odd in the mapscript. Many Graben tiles are not Sink elevation.

For example:

http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac149/Ahriman_pics/graben.jpg

Ahriman
Nov 27, 2010, 02:22 PM
It would be great if we could make one more look at the unload AI.
I still find that in the vast majority of cases, the AI moves its suspensor transports onto my land without unloading, and only unloads on the next turn, giving a full turn in which I can use my land units to destroy the transports without having to fight the cargo.

We ideally want the transports to unload on the same turn in which they make landfall.

*edit*
Cymek requires Thinking Machines religion present; it should require Thinking Machines state religion.
Otherwise, why convert?

rayquaza506
Nov 28, 2010, 11:07 AM
Thanks for making this great mod guys, I appreciate all the hard work that you've put into this. Though I am wondering if your ever going to fix the multiplayer desync on combat issue. Me and my friend have been dieing to play this together. And once again thanks :).

Humakty
Nov 29, 2010, 11:36 AM
I used a couple grenade troopers in my current game, and they dealt no collateral damages.

Thanks for not moving to civ 5 ! Just kiddin', great mod, bravo !

davidlallen
Nov 29, 2010, 12:46 PM
Though I am wondering if your ever going to fix the multiplayer desync on combat issue. Me and my friend have been dieing to play this together. And once again thanks :).

"Theoretically", the only reason DW does not work in multiplayer is because of issues in the underlying mod RevolutionDCM. However, it seems there is a version 2.7 which fixes this:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262937

Merging revdcm into dw is a very painful process, but if mp is really reliable, this would be a good improvement for dw.

EDIT: I cruised that thread more carefully. It was after 2.7, maybe in late March. See post 2524, 2654 in that thread for status. I did not cruise carefully after. Certainly, updating to the latest should get it, but the further you go from a base the harder merging becomes.

AbsintheRed
Nov 29, 2010, 04:24 PM
IIRC it was even later, somewhere around the release of 2.8
But the multi is fairly stable in the latest versions
Some small issues always comes up, but definitely playable

Deliverator
Nov 30, 2010, 02:41 AM
I've noticed something odd in the mapscript. Many Graben tiles are not Sink elevation.

Which mapscript was this? I wouldn't be suprised if this was happening with Dune Archipelago - I have tried and failed to fix things like this in that mapscript before - for example, the fact that you get the occasional Sink-Rugged plot. For some reason, the hacky post-processing we have in Dune Archipelago doesn't always work. I don't think I've seen issues like this with Arrakis mapscript, but there may be.

It would be great if we could make one more look at the unload AI.
I still find that in the vast majority of cases, the AI moves its suspensor transports onto my land without unloading, and only unloads on the next turn, giving a full turn in which I can use my land units to destroy the transports without having to fight the cargo.

We ideally want the transports to unload on the same turn in which they make landfall.


Yes, this would be good but we probably lack the know-how for the fix. Sephi suggested some code to resolve this - we tried a few different implementations of it, but they all lead to infinite loops at some point in the game. I'm not sure we'll make much progress with this unless one of the AI experts kindly provides us with a working fix.

Cymek requires Thinking Machines religion present; it should require Thinking Machines state religion.

Thanks, this will be fixed in next patch.

Merging revdcm into dw is a very painful process, but if mp is really reliable, this would be a good improvement for dw.

The best way I think would be to rebuild on the RevDCM 2.82 base. Working multiplayer would be a compelling reason to do it. I can tell they are on a much newer version of BUG than DW, and I guess they are on Better AI 1.01 too. I have time to look at this over the Christmas break if not before. It would be a fairly big job as we'd be merging over a year's worth of Dune Wars SDK and Python changes back into RevDCM.

Alternatively, it might be worth seeing if we can isolate the fix - but it sounds like there were multiple issues. I might PM lemmy101 and see if he can help.

Deliverator
Nov 30, 2010, 02:45 AM
From 1.9 beta thread:

Still playing a version of the Beta rather than the final, but I am able to build the Razzia Raider unit (playing as Atreides). This was supposed to be a Fremen UU.

This was fixed in 1.9 final.

And Fremen are supposed to be blocked from building Rollers, but they seem able to build them.
[And thopters, etc.]

Ooops. This must have crept in when I tidied up the UUs using the Fall Further code. I'll re-instate in the next patch.

Forest feature was intended to give +1 hammers. In beta 2 at least, it isn't. Its only in grassland sinks, its designed to be a production compensation for the hammer removal from grassland, and to make sure that sink tiles are still superior even once terraformed.

Will check this out.

Lets remove the no-nukes UN council vote. Its boring if nukes are banned before they can even be built, and we already have the idea of atomics being outlawed by the Great Convention.

Sounds reasonable.

Deliverator
Nov 30, 2010, 02:50 AM
Another general thought: is there a global parameter that changes unit upkeep? I wonder if we should increase unit upkeep, since we have large armies (high hammer output) and large gold income (spice, lots of bonuses from civics) relative to vanilla.
Unit upkeep never really seems to hurt in this mod - which in part means that civics like Hereditary rule are very strong because its easy to stack up large numbers of units to satisfy your happiness needs without hurting your economy.

Guide to Civ 4 unit maintenance here (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/unit_maintenance.php).

The options seem to be to increase one or both of:
a) Increase INITIAL_GOLD_PER_UNIT which is set to 1. We can mod the SDK to allow fractional values like 1.5 etc - by default it is an integer. If you want to experiment you could try setting this to 2 in GlobalDefines.xml.
b) Increase INITIAL_OUTSIDE_UNIT_GOLD_PERCENT this is set to 65% and affects the amount of Unit Supply that is paid for units outside your cultural borders.

Ahriman
Nov 30, 2010, 05:24 AM
Guide to Civ 4 unit maintenance here.

The options seem to be to increase one or both of:
a) Increase INITIAL_GOLD_PER_UNIT which is set to 1. We can mod the SDK to allow fractional values like 1.5 etc - by default it is an integer. If you want to experiment you could try setting this to 2 in GlobalDefines.xml.
b) Increase INITIAL_OUTSIDE_UNIT_GOLD_PERCENT this is set to 65% and affects the amount of Unit Supply that is paid for units outside your cultural borders.

Awesome, its exactly as simple as we could hope. The joy of XML.
I'll do some testing when I get a chance. I guess I worry that it could crash the AI's economy, because the human player gets by with fewer units than the AI and can use them more efficiently. And because the AI builds up large armies of infantry in the early game.

As another alternative, we could have some of the higher end-more powerful civics increase unit maintenance cost.

God-Emperor
Nov 30, 2010, 10:12 PM
Another option that can adjust all this is that civics can add a specific number a free units, free military units (I think this only has an effect if also running a civic that adds a cost for military units, as per Pacifism), or even free [military or not] units as a percentage of population. So if boosting their cost makes them a bit too expensive, you can allow some free units too.

lasombra1984
Dec 01, 2010, 03:23 AM
New Harkonnen Heavy Trooper skin is awesome)

Ahriman
Dec 01, 2010, 07:05 AM
Another option that can adjust all this is that civics can add a specific number a free units, free military units (I think this only has an effect if also running a civic that adds a cost for military units, as per Pacifism), or even free [military or not] units as a percentage of population. So if boosting their cost makes them a bit too expensive, you can allow some free units too.

Possibly, but this risks exacerbating the AI/human difference even more.

Example:
Suppose that the unit upkeep is:
Max[0, A(n-X)]
where A is the multiplier per unit, X is the number of free military units, and n is the number of units the player has.

Now suppose that:
X = 15
the AI has twice as many units as the human player
the human player has 30 units the AI player has 60 units.

So, the human pays 15A gold upkeep per turn and the AI pays 45A, or 300% of the human player's payment.

If we increase X to 25, then the human player pays 5A gold per turn in upkeep and the AI pays 35A, which is 700% of the human player's upkeep.

Population linkage is also problematic, because the AI tends to have smaller population than the human - its less likely to adopt Paradise, and its less likely to emphasize water-boosting buildings.

Does anyone know where we can check on the AI bonuses for difficulty level? Do they directly get more free units at higher difficulty levels? If so, then we're probably fine to increase the unit upkeep costs. And we could tweak the difficulty modifiers if needed.

Deliverator
Dec 01, 2010, 07:24 AM
Does anyone know where we can check on the AI bonuses for difficulty level? Do they directly get more free units at higher difficulty levels? If so, then we're probably fine to increase the unit upkeep costs. And we could tweak the difficulty modifiers if needed.

See table showing Civ4HandicapInfo.xml data here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158130). UnitUpkeepPercent and UnitSupplyPercent are reduced for the AI at higher difficulty levels. I can't see any changes to the number of free units.

Should we have a fixed set of starting units for each faction? At the moment, I think factions that start with Exploration get a Scout Thopter which is quite an advantage. Civs starting with two Soldiers feels a bit lame. What do people think should be the starting units for each faction?

God-Emperor
Dec 01, 2010, 08:51 AM
I just stumbled across something related to this.

In CvPlayer.cpp, in the CvPlayer::calculateUnitCost function, after it has calculated the number of free units and free military units it does this:
if (!isHuman())
{
if (GET_TEAM(getTeam()).hasMetHuman())
{
iFreeUnits += getNumCities(); // XXX
iFreeMilitaryUnits += getNumCities(); // XXX
}
}
So if the AI has met the (or a) human it gets an extra free unit and free military unit per city that it has, hardcoded into the DLL in addition to any adjustment from settings in the XML. This is independent of difficulty level.

So it pays less unit upkeep than it seems like it should from the numbers in the XML.

Omsion
Dec 01, 2010, 02:41 PM
Are there any restrictions on founding multiple religions?

Founded Shai-Hulad first, then was first to reach Great Houses (CHOAM wasn't founded on the religion screen). Religion wasn't founded. Checked world builder - no other player had the tech either. House Ordos eventually founds CHOAM when they reach it ~5 turns later.

Ahriman
Dec 01, 2010, 03:08 PM
Are there any restrictions on founding multiple religions?
No, but there are restrictions on which religions can be founded by particular civilizations.

For example, I don't think Fremen can found CHOAM, and Bene Gesserit might not be able to either.

This is noted in the documentation for each religion.

One thing we should consider is removing these restrictions (except for Tleilaxu) if we make a canon vs non-canon game option.

So Roleplay-game would have the religion block restrictions and the house vendetta modifiers, and normal game would have neither.

AbsintheRed
Dec 01, 2010, 06:12 PM
I think the religion restrictions are fine this way, all games should have it
The civs were balanced including religions after all...

Ahriman
Dec 01, 2010, 06:15 PM
The civs were balanced including religions after all...
Well, not really. And the civs aren't very balanced yet.
For example, Ordos are very weak, and Corrino is decent mostly because of the Imperial trait.

Omsion
Dec 01, 2010, 06:18 PM
No, but there are restrictions on which religions can be founded by particular civilizations.

For example, I don't think Fremen can found CHOAM, and Bene Gesserit might not be able to either.

This is noted in the documentation for each religion.

One thing we should consider is removing these restrictions (except for Tleilaxu) if we make a canon vs non-canon game option.

So Roleplay-game would have the religion block restrictions and the house vendetta modifiers, and normal game would have neither.Ah...was looking all over the Civilopedia for that. Guess "religion" would be too obvious a location :lol:

AbsintheRed
Dec 01, 2010, 06:57 PM
Well, not really. And the civs aren't very balanced yet.
For example, Ordos are very weak, and Corrino is decent mostly because of the Imperial trait.

Really? Ordos were easily leading in my last two games (of the AI civs)
Anyway, I agree that the game isn't balanced too much. For me the Fremen seems way too overpowered. They are always strong played by the AI, and in the hands of a human player they are simply unstoppable

But I think the religion system is good, and will be even better with further balancing. This diversity in religions has many advantages for Dune Wars - especially compared to other mods
Don't drop it from any of the gameplay versions

Ahriman
Dec 02, 2010, 05:41 AM
Really? Ordos were easily leading in my last two games (of the AI civs)
Ordos does well as an AI civ because it is very mercenary, and is very willing to be bribed or to trade techs. So it does ok as an AI player because it tech-trades like crazy.

But for a human player, its only advantages are the Trike and the Chem Trooper. Trike is very nice for pillage-raiding, but after the early game they have no particular advantages.

Omsion
Dec 02, 2010, 06:18 PM
EOT hang on this save.

lasombra1984
Dec 03, 2010, 02:59 PM
Are there any restrictions on founding multiple religions?

Founded Shai-Hulad first, then was first to reach Great Houses (CHOAM wasn't founded on the religion screen). Religion wasn't founded. Checked world builder - no other player had the tech either. House Ordos eventually founds CHOAM when they reach it ~5 turns later.

I had the same problem when tried to found Mahdi as Harkonnen.

Ahriman
Dec 04, 2010, 07:03 AM
And the answer should be the same:
there are restrictions on which religions can be founded by particular civilizations.
This is noted in the documentation for each religion

lasombra1984
Dec 04, 2010, 06:36 PM
And the answer should be the same:

I noticed that religions have to be founded in particular order SH, Imperial, CHOAM, Mahdi, Qwizarate, TM.
Mahdi will not be founded before Imperial or CHOAM. I've tested.

Ahriman
Dec 04, 2010, 08:04 PM
I noticed that religions have to be founded in particular order SH, Imperial, CHOAM, Mahdi, Qwizarate, TM.
Mahdi will not be founded before Imperial or CHOAM. I've tested.

I am ~95% sure that there are no hardcode blocks here.

They end up getting founded in roughly this order because of the order in which factions tend to research techs and because of the tech requirements.

Some religions will always be founded before others (eg Imperium before CHOAM) because the founding tech for CHOAM requires that the founding tech for Imperium first be researched.

But its all in the tech tree, I don't think there are any other order requirements.

Deliverator
Dec 05, 2010, 06:57 AM
I am ~95% sure that there are no hardcode blocks here.

There is no hard-coded blocking or forced ordering of religion founding. The only restriction is that some Civilizations cannot found certain religions. The Harkonnens can't found Mahdi, but that isn't documented anywhere in 1.9 unfortunately. I've fixed this in the new patch.

Patch 1.9.0.1 is now released (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9976041&postcount=28) which should clarify a few things in the pedia hopefully.

Ahriman
Dec 05, 2010, 02:34 PM
I did some testing with INITIAL_GOLD_PER_UNIT to 2.
AI autoplays seemed to lead to basically the same AI scores with and without the change.

I don't think it makes much difference to the AI, because on the low difficulty levels (AI effectively plays on Noble) the player gets a lot of free units, so unit maintenance isn't such a pain.

I think we should seriously consider making this change.

I'll try to do some human-playtesting and see if the game "feels" differently.

Crighton
Dec 07, 2010, 06:32 AM
I downloaded and installed the 1.9 patch and got to play a little bit last night. When I was St Alia of Knife, and had that 2% Abomination chance thing going.

It hit two time in a row, in a span of 50 turns it hit seven times. Each time saying it had changed my traits and to mouseover the flag. I noticed no change in my traits. I stayed Aggressive / Religious the whole time.

Deliverator
Dec 07, 2010, 07:33 AM
There is 2% chance each turn that Alia's traits switch so I guess seven times in 50 turns is not impossible. Perhaps we should implement a minimum number turns between switches?

There is a display bug in that mousing over the flag only shows the original traits - to see the changed ones you can mouseover the leader portrait in the Foreign Advisor (F4). In other words, the traits are changing it just can't be seen by mousing over the flag.

Crighton
Dec 07, 2010, 08:09 AM
Ah.

A number of turns between trait switch makes sense, I don't mind the switching, I just didn't know about not seeing it. It was the back to back switching that really caught my attention. Personally I like the thought of it, it's in keeping with the storyline, imo.

Ahriman
Dec 07, 2010, 08:31 AM
Perhaps we should implement a minimum number turns between switches?
This might be a good idea. Maybe a minimum of 20 turns on Normal speed, 10 for Quick, 40 for Epic, 60 for Marathon?

I think we want to make it so that if your traits change and you set new build priorities based on this (eg choose military units if aggressive, temples if spiritual, etc.) that those buildings are completed before you can change again.

Crighton
Dec 07, 2010, 11:24 AM
It's not a bad idea.

Eitherway the idea works. If it's 2% chance per turn with no wait between turns it plays towards the storyline that Alia was somewhat unbalanced towards the end of the characters life. If the turn limit is put in, it works towards gameplayability.

As a side note, if it means anything, I was playing on Marathon speed when the switches occurred.

Ahriman
Dec 09, 2010, 07:14 PM
A balance thought: many people comment on the incredibly powerful Tleilaxu economy.

We could keep the flavor of their specialist economy but tone down the ability of their supercapital to produce epic gold quantities if we removed the +1 gold per Zensufi city ability from the shrine, and left the shrine as just a priest booster.

With the increase in the value of culture expanding an unlimited number of tiles, I think we could remove the +happy from barracks from Great Convention civic.

Crighton
Dec 10, 2010, 07:16 AM
this might seem like an odd question, but are cities limited to only one or two religions? i'll make some notes to ask this question better over the weekend, but in my game last night I couldn't locate any city that had three or more (even though all had been founded etc).

And now that I've typed this, I think to myself: go back and look at city screen to see if this is true, the city graphic on the main screen may only show the dominant religion or two.

Sigh.

Ahriman
Dec 10, 2010, 07:25 AM
this might seem like an odd question, but are cities limited to only one or two religions
No, there is no hard-block. It is theoretically possible to have Shai Hulad, Mahdi, Imperial, Choam, Qizarate and Thinking Machines in the same city (if they are added in the right order).

However:
a) Imperial is displaced by any other religion.
b) Qizarate displaces all other religions when it arrives in a city
c) Zensufism is only ever present in Tleilaxu cities (and wipes away all others)
d) Mahdi is spread only by conquest
e) Like in vanilla Civ4, religions only passively spread to cities that do not already have a religion. [Though there are some "wildfire" religion spreads on founding of Mahdi, Qizarate and Thinking Machines.]

These all combine to mean that its not common for cities to have lots of religions.

Which is a good thing, IMO.
One of the things I really dislike about Civ4 vanilla religion is their Pokemon type nature; gotta catch em all, and more is always better.

Its more flavorful if you only have 1-2 religions in your empire, and then those religions actually influence your playstyle.

Deliverator
Dec 10, 2010, 09:05 AM
a) Imperial is displaced by any other religion.
b) Qizarate displaces all other religions when it arrives in a city
c) Zensufism is only ever present in Tleilaxu cities (and wipes away all others)
d) Mahdi is spread only by conquest
e) Like in vanilla Civ4, religions only passively spread to cities that do not already have a religion. [Though there are some "wildfire" religion spreads on founding of Mahdi, Qizarate and Thinking Machines.]

I should try and get some of this info in the Religion pedia screen.

One correction, the wildfire spread mechanic only happens on founding Mahdi and Thinking Machines. Qizarate gives 7 missionary units (Qizarate Priests) on founding - in the hands of the AI this has a pretty similar end result to the wildfire spread in that a lot of cities will switch to be the new religion only.

Ahriman
Dec 10, 2010, 09:45 AM
I should try and get some of this info in the Religion pedia screen.
I think a lot of it is in the specific Religion pages, but I agree that it might be better to have a clearer summary, and to maybe have this core info in one place.

One correction, the wildfire spread mechanic only happens on founding Mahdi and Thinking Machines. Qizarate gives 7 missionary units (Qizarate Priests) on founding - in the hands of the AI this has a pretty similar end result to the wildfire spread in that a lot of cities will switch to be the new religion only.

Cool, thanks I hadn't tried a Qizarate path yet.
I mostly play Emperor or Immortal, and unless you really beeline the founding tech (giving up a lot of nice economic growth techs) its pretty hard to beat the AI to founding most techs.

I've done some testing with 2 gold unit upkeep, and I tentatively think it improves the game.
Its hard to tell, because for most of the early game (where you think you'd notice it) you have enough free units so that you don't pay any maintenance. And then in the late-game, its hard to compare one match to another, because things are so dependent on history and terrain.

Crighton
Dec 10, 2010, 11:25 AM
Thanks for the info on the religions, for the most part it makes sense.

But I would ask why CHOAM is a religion as opposed to a corporation (which it was in the novels). I also don't recall any corporations in the game, granted the novels only really discussed two corporations, CHOAM and the Guild both of which are present. I like the way the guild works in DW.

I think from a theme standpoint, CHOAM ought to be the only corporation in the game. With the idea being someone founds CHOAM, a founding city is assigned the same way it is for a religion OR a CHOAM Great-representative is created at the founding and the player can then relocate to city of choice. Then use the Great-rep or maybe a Great Merchant to create the CHOAM Company HQ, the great GM being required to build the company HQ is probably an easy thing to do in xml, comparitively speaking. The Corp HQ would be a world wonder type building, and each civ that had CHOAM branches could build a regional corporate office as a national wonder (with nice benefits, just not anywhere near as nice as having the Corp HQ WW). If something like this were to be implemented, the commerce side of the benefits could offset an increase in maintenance costs of units. Anyway just a thought.

By the way I should point out I only just recently started playing with DW and am still playing at one level above noob until I can get myself all the way up to speed.

Ahriman
Dec 10, 2010, 11:46 AM
But I would ask why CHOAM is a religion as opposed to a corporation (which it was in the novels)
We use the Religion mechanic in Dune not just to model religions (in terms of beliefs about god and such) but to model motivating ideas, and beliefs about who should be in charge.
The Imperial religion isn't worship, its political support favoring the Emperor as a source of power, and the traditional norms of the universe that exist at the start of the book Dune.

CHOAM is about throwing political support behind that organization and the Landsraad. Its still an old-guard religion, but its more adaptable, as long as CHOAM keeps bringing profits. Its hostile to anything that threatens the spice though.

Corporations are a poorly designed BTS mechanic. They are very confusing in how they are implemented - particularly their upkeep. They also can't really be used as a gold booster; all corporations end up costing gold and producing food, hammers or culture instead (or whatever).
We used to use the corporation mechanic for House Spice corporations, but then we managed to merge that functionality directly into the palaces. (You used to have to build a spice corporation hq building, unique for each faction, which founded the corporation, and was then un-spreadable.

Whereas religions are a transparent mechanic, and they affect diplomacy and happiness levels as well.

So: we've thought about this, and I think the current solution is probably simplest.

By the way I should point out I only just recently started playing with DW
No problem. I encourage you to keep posting feedback; the "initial impressions" of a new player are often the most valuable kind of feedback.

and am still playing at one level above noob until I can get myself all the way up to speed
There's a lot to learn, so this is wise. However, I think the game gets much more fun at the highest difficulty levels, where the AI can really start to put up a decent fight, and tends to beat you to wonders and .
I would say that the most important advice I'd give is:
a) Pay very careful attention to city placement. Optimal city placement is mostly about getting access to water (from mesa, groundwater or bonus plants) in the BFC, and bonus resources to a lesser extent. You'll want to build cities a lot further apart than in vanilla; its rare that you'll want to overlap.
b) Concentrate on techs and buildings that increase water yield. Water is more of a binding constraint than happiness is.
c) The mod favors rapid expansion. If you don't settle there, the AI will.
d) Pay close attention to civic synergies, including your choice of Paradise or Spice. Certain combinations work very well together in supporting ether specialist or cottage economies.
e) Adjust your playstyle to take advantage of your faction's advantages and those of your religion.
f) Tech bee-lining can be very powerful. The tech tree is much "wider" than in vanilla, you don't need everything.

Deliverator
Dec 10, 2010, 11:48 AM
(I see Ahriman beat me to it, but anyway...)

The religions in Dune Wars are really more ideologies than religions. CHOAM is the trade oriented ideology. At some point it might be worth replacing the phrase 'Religion' with 'Ideology' throughout the mod just to clarify how we are using them.

The core mechanic of Corporations in BTS is that corporate branches produce a yield of food, hammers, gold, culture, science or espionage (with modding) dependent on the number of a bonus that that city has access to. We have lifted that part of the mechanic (X gold per instance of a resource) and allowed it to used on any building - this is how the Palaces and CHOAM Headquarters collect spice revenues. So essentially we have a simplified version of corporations without the really complicated black-box that is corporate maintenance.

These two threads contain some previous discussions on the subject:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=328792
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=336948

We shouldn't model CHOAM using the corporation mechanic just because CHOAM is a corporation in the books IMO, but if there are good ideas on how to develop the features of the CHOAM religion/ideology then we can discuss them.

Ahriman
Dec 10, 2010, 12:25 PM
I'd also suggest these threads on religion design:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=349617
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=330907

Would also to be good to get feedback on:
2. I've been tempted for a while to change some of the requirements to require State Religion, not just religious presence, otherwise there isn't sufficient incentive to adopt the religion.
There's a tradeoff here though, between incentives for the human player and implications for the AI. The human player can see benefits from changing state religion, and be encouraged to do it. The AI tends to not see those benefits, and so just won't change religion and won't achieve any of the benefits of the new religion.

Also been considering whether Temple (not cathedral) buildings should be auto-destroyed if you lose that religion in your city. This would prevent exploits where you can say build the Shai-Hulad and CHOAM temples, then wipe the religions away with a Qizarate missionary.
The only real issue with this is that it would be too easy to blow up Imperial temples using missionaries of any religion (which auto-displace Imperial religion).
from http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=364073

I'd also add that the CHOAM religion used to be called Landsraad, and was more clearly a mix of support for the Landsraad as well as CHOAM, but we changed some names to reduce repetition, so Landsraad is just the UN-mechanic.

Ahriman
Dec 10, 2010, 12:49 PM
Another idea: I wonder if we should remove unlimited tech-men from the Faufreluches civic.

The AI seems to auto-allocate basically every specialist to techman as soon as Faufreluches is adopted, because it values hammers over other yield types.

We could change Faufreluches to give +1 hammer instead of +1 gold per specialist to avoid weakening it and making the specialist economy too hammer-poor.

Jester Fool
Dec 10, 2010, 01:08 PM
I wonder if we should remove unlimited tech-men from the Faufreluches civic.I like it as is. The AI consistently uses the Great Techmen generated to research technologies and finish wonders. I have never seen a settled Great Techman but have seen the other Great People settled in cities I capture. Also, I think production for the AIs is a good thing as I never notice the AIs to lack income. The AIs seem to benefit so I do not think it really necessary to change. Just my opinion of course. :)

Crighton
Dec 10, 2010, 01:12 PM
Does CHOAM displace any of the other religions?

In thinking about it, CHOAM as a religion actually does act similar to what I mentioned before, I'm at work while typing, so for whatever reason I completely forgot about a few minor details while I was working on the preceeding post, like cathedrals (the idea being temple => x number of temples and you can build cathedral (or whatever the CHOAM equivilant is) and corporate HQ being the CHOAM holy city bit.

I'm only on my fourth actual game, in my third game I expanded more than my usual, and in my current game I've founded way way way more than I ever do in a civ game. My last CIV game I played I founded a total of three cities, the third city being founded in the late 1800's just prior to my domination win. Only two cities are not thriving, mainly due to lack of sufficient water resources, but serve as good airbases and cultural outposts near the spice fields. Probably worth the trade.

~Crighton

P.S. Thank you for remembering House Ordos. They were my favorite faction back in the PS1 days.

Ahriman
Dec 10, 2010, 01:17 PM
Settling great people is a pretty decent strategy if you're using a specialist economy with Faufreluches and Meritocracy, as each settled specialist gets +1gold+1culture+1beaker, and possibly more from wonders. Stack them up in the appropriate city (gold specialist, beaker specialist, military production specialist) and they can be quite powerful. Much better than using the trade mission.
So settling great people isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I should also clarify: I don't just mean AI as in non-human player, I also mean the default citizen allocation that occurs for the human player who doesn't want to micromanage all of their cities.

It just seems unfortunate to me that a policy that is supposed to be about a rigid system of classes and castes ends up meaning that everyone belongs to the Tech-Man caste. No scientists, no traders, no nobles.

I don't feel strongly about the change, just soliciting feedback, so thanks.

* * *
Does CHOAM displace any of the other religions?
If you use a CHOAM missionary in a city with Imperium, then Imperium is displaced.

and in my current game I've founded way way way more than I ever do in a civ game
If by founded you mean founded religion, then this is a function of difficulty level.
The AI gets big tech bonuses on higher difficulty levels; I play on Emperor or Immortal, and it builds most wonders and founds all the religions unless I specifically focus on founding them (which has an opportunity cost).

If you mean cities founded, it depends somewhat on map size and number of players. If you don't want to found many cities, then play a smaller map, or a map with more players on it.

I personally tend to avoid building a city if it isn't near some water resources, but that may just be my "perfectionist" style tendencies. I enjoy having every city be awesome. But even then, I normally found ~6 or so cities.

Ordos aren't canon, but they seem flavorful enough to include. I enjoy their AI behavior as mercenary backstabbing scum.

Crighton
Dec 10, 2010, 01:57 PM
I meant founding cities. It's a bit of a switch for me. I get the water (wells / windtraps) part so for the most part my cities seem to be doing ok populationwise. Haven't quite got to specializing beyond military production and general economy yet, brute force can go a long way thankfully.

skunkpuppy
Dec 11, 2010, 03:42 AM
Is there a reason why Automated Factories and Automated Research Centres don't require the Thinking Machines religion to be present in a city?

c.fe
Dec 11, 2010, 04:01 AM
Hi,

I think I found a bug (or a big imbalance): A mentat with sapho gives +24 :) and +24 :health: .

Nevertheless, thanks for the fun mod.

Ahriman
Dec 11, 2010, 08:20 AM
Is there a reason why Automated Factories and Automated Research Centres don't require the Thinking Machines religion to be present in a city?

They should. If they don't, thats a bug.

I'm tempted to make them require Thinking Machines state religion too.

I think I found a bug (or a big imbalance)

Thanks, also sounds like a bug.
However, Deliverator has a plan for redesigning mentats, so we might ignore it until he has the new system working.

Nevertheless, thanks for the fun mod.
Glad you're enjoying it. Any other feedback would be greatly appreciated.

AbsintheRed
Dec 11, 2010, 09:31 AM
Is there a reason why Automated Factories and Automated Research Centres don't require the Thinking Machines religion to be present in a city?

They should. If they don't, thats a bug.

I'm tempted to make them require Thinking Machines state religion too.


I can confirm this, right now any city can build those buildings
Anyway, I think religion present in the city should be enough, do not make them require state religion

Ahriman
Dec 11, 2010, 09:42 AM
Anyway, I think religion present in the city should be enough, do not make them require state religion
Do you, as a human player, ever adopt Thinking Machines state religion?

If none of the benefits from Thinking Machines require you to adopt it as state religion, why would you ever bother to do so? Its such a late-game thing that chances are you already have some other religion spread through most of your cities. This is my concern.

Lajbi
Dec 11, 2010, 01:07 PM
First of all I love the concept and respect the efforts you guys put in it. I had my first three experiences with it getting a harder level each time. Now I'm at Emperor/Epic/Tleilaxu. and I have a few questions and remarks:
*The goody-huts-turned-botanic-gardens made my game won in turn 3. I received a vulture thopter and viped out the 4 closest civs in 10 turns. I could keep 4 cities that made a total of six to me (I only had to found one more city except the capital and I'm already at tturn 150 or so). So it really makes a big overwhelming military presence too early (and it comes too often as House Harkonnen also received one but I successfully outmaneovered it and captured the capital guarded by only one scout thopter and eliminated the civ leaving their Vulture being lost with it)
*I cannot use the Axlotl tanks. Nothing happens. I kept my Vulture thopter and upgraded it to Falcon and it had 120 XP points but none of the falcons inherit his promotions. Is it because the upgrade? It needs to be fixed. Although I'm almost winning a strategic victory and giving all the 20-30 falcons the same promotions would result in a mid-game victory to me.
*Also I have a fifteen-some cities and I cannot scroll the offworld trade screen to have the reinforcements arrive in the newly occupied cities at the bottom of the list.

Ahriman
Dec 11, 2010, 01:34 PM
Some interesting points here. I can see that if you managed to luck out and get a thopter on the first few turns that would be very strong, even with the "poorly maintained" penalty.
Maybe poorly maintained should also give an additional city attack penalty?

I think we're considering changing axolotl tanks to a new design. I don't really understand their current implementation very well sorry.

Omsion
Dec 11, 2010, 07:20 PM
EOT hang on this save.Going back to this. Link to save (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=274300&d=1291338851).

The area of interest is on the border between the Freman and Corrino.
2N1E of the barbarian city Cave of Voices are 2 Corrino Laza Tigers.
2N of the barbarian city are a stack of Freman units (3 Crysknife, 1 Bladesman) and a Corrino Quad and Infantry.

The cause of the EoT freeze would be the Corrino Infantry unit. Removing that allows the game to continue. Alternately, removing the Laza Tigers also allows the game to continue. I have no idea why one or the other works.

Anyway, do take another look at the hidden nationality implementation. FFH (still not all resolved?) also had a whole host of freezes and crashes related to HN units (though I personally never encountered any myself).

EDIT:
Found a few fixes in the FFH patch notes - would any of these apply here as well?

Patch 0.41o
...
5. Fixed a WoC (joining an illegal group) in ConquestMove (fix by Snarko).
6. Fixed a WoC (hiddennationailtiy) in ConquestMove (fix by Snarko).
...
10. Fixed a WoC caused by AIControlled and Hidden Nationality units grouping with each other (fix by Snarko).

skunkpuppy
Dec 11, 2010, 08:04 PM
They should. If they don't, thats a bug.

I'm tempted to make them require Thinking Machines state religion too.


One more thing, I'm not sure if the Ix get "unhappiness-free" versions of the Automated Factories/Research Centres.

Ahriman
Dec 12, 2010, 07:09 AM
Agree that HN is a potential cause of crashes. No idea if the FFH fixes would help.
My personal preference is that I don't really like the Laza Tiger implementation; it feels wrong to have them going around slaughtering full strength units, and HN doesn't work that well. I think they'd be more interesting if, rather than making then HN, we made then like a FFH-assassin unit, that attacked the weakest unit in the stack. So we could make then say strength 3, +100% vs guardsmen and melee, marksman.

We had some differences in opinion in design over whether IX should get less unhappiness from the Thinking Machines buildings. It can be confusing to have UB replacement versions, but we could have the buildings give +1 happy with Ixian Technologies. But I'm also not that bothered by having Ix be the same as everyone else here either.

AbsintheRed
Dec 12, 2010, 10:17 AM
After thinking more about this, probably the best solution would be, that Automated Factories and Automated Research Centres requires the Thinking Machines religion present in the city, but they don't give any unhappiness if you adopt it as a state religion. For all factions
It sounds quite logical for me this way, and seems nice for gameplay

Ahriman
Dec 12, 2010, 12:08 PM
Something like that seems reasonable. It would be simple to implement. Or we could combine these.
We could make them: Requires Thinking Machines, +3 unhappy, +2 happy if thinking machines is state religion, and maybe +1 happy with Ixian weaponry resource.

Maq
Dec 12, 2010, 07:55 PM
Hey there.
Long time reader, first time poster here.
I've downloaded this mod only 2 days ago and i love it. I'm a big fan of Dune and you guys did a really good job there. In fact this mod even made me register on the forums ;)

However, i come not without feedback/bug reports/questions.

Yesterday i started a game as Fremen and what surprised me was, that the Guardsmen didn't recieve their free sandrider promotion. The pedia entry about fremen states, that all fremen light foot units get this promotion. Since my capital was kind of isolated on a lonely island in the far southeast, i had quite a hard time supporting my new founded sietch.
I overcame this problem by researching suspensor vehicles, but i don't think fremen should ever rely on those, right?

Later in the game i built my first suspensor carrier. (i decided to screw roleplay at some point.) I stationed 2 Wasp fighters on it and then i desperately searched the intercept button. It was gone!
How should i protect my fedaykin from air attacks in the desert now? :(
Don't know if it's intended that interceptors can't intercept on carriers.

The next thing is, i can't make an alliance with others. I traded them the tech required for alliances. Is it because i'm at war with the bene tleilax? But so are they. Maybe I'm unaware of some game mechanics there.

Looking forward to test the other factions. Bene Gesserit look really tempting to me :)

skunkpuppy
Dec 13, 2010, 02:09 AM
The botanical station free vulture thopter (albeit poorly maintained) is too powerful. If you get that early enough you can wipe out at least two or three nearby civs until they get infantry. With the first couple of kills you can easily get the Desert II promotion, which makes the vulture very powerful. Perhaps just a free Scout Thopter will do?

Crighton
Dec 13, 2010, 06:59 AM
One bug to report: starting a custom game the game crashes to desktop if I choose either random starting period or the thrid time period (the name of which escapes me at the moment).

Ahriman
Dec 13, 2010, 08:00 AM
Yesterday i started a game as Fremen and what surprised me was, that the Guardsmen didn't recieve their free sandrider promotion.

I just wrote a really long post describing our challenge with this, but then somehow hit the back button in my browser, and lost the post. Sorry, can't repeat it.

Summary version:
Current implementation has sandrider only for melee, not guardsmen.
Its problematic to change this, and to remove suspensors because of:
a) AI issues
b) Unit roles (we don't want too many roles filled by too many units)
c) Empty tech-tree (we don't want too many techs empty/useless for Fremen)
d) Balance (we want Fremen in deserts to be vulnerable to thopters and hornets)

We've thought about this before, and ideally we'd like Fremen to be even more different, but its hard to implement.

* * *
The botanical station free vulture thopter (albeit poorly maintained) is too powerful.
I've never actually gotten one. Its possible (not sure) that this result is blocked on higher difficult levels?
Possible solutions are:
a) Add a city attack penalty to poorly maintained
b) Add a minimum turns or tech requirement (the one that gives infantry?) to the vulture thopter result.

Also, see the design thread here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=361625

We specifically wanted to avoid results that are too weak or boring; free scouts or map revealed tend to fall into this category.

AbsintheRed
Dec 13, 2010, 07:51 PM
On Vulture Thopters, I'm sure this depends on difficulty level. I never got one so far...
This is vanilla behavior, for examlpe there you cannot get settler from Noble diff.

Anyway, they do seem very powerful, even if they get city attack penalty
I think botanical gardens should add a weaker unit instead

Ahriman
Dec 14, 2010, 05:44 AM
I think botanical gardens should add a weaker unit instead
There really isn't anything weaker that it is still useful. Getting a lone infantry unit or soldier out in the middle of nowhere is pretty useless. Particularly if its stuck on an island.

I suppose we could have an effect where you discover enough weaponry to outfit an infantry unit - but receive it in your capital, instead of on the tile?
Infantry in capital would be useful.

AbsintheRed
Dec 14, 2010, 02:26 PM
This sounds much better for me
It can also be impemeted by adding production bonus to the capital

Crighton
Dec 14, 2010, 03:18 PM
having it pop a settler or a worker unit might be an idea

Lajbi
Dec 15, 2010, 09:45 AM
-Ok. I tested again so I played Emperor and I started a new game choosing Harkonnen/Mammoth/Epic : From the botanical gardens I received:
*a quad (-20% poor condition)
*an infantry (when I and the enemies only had soldiers)
*another infantry (and remember infantries don't get the -20% penalty, because they are "tribes" that "join" you)
I eliminated two civs with them. The quad got upgraded so its minuses were balanced. 30% of gardens gave a unit. I guess it was only my game luck but the quad means the Emperor difficulty gitfs strong vehicles.
One bug to report: starting a custom game the game crashes to desktop if I choose either random starting period or the thrid time period (the name of which escapes me at the moment).
*I only experience such problems when playing with the Harkonnens. Custom game doesn't start (LAUNCH icon doesn't react) and I cannot quit neither. Loading is remarkably slower and there's a big pause at the start of every turn. Loading saved games crash to desktop with "memory allocation error". And these only happen when playing with the Harks the others work perfectly.

Ahriman
Dec 15, 2010, 10:28 AM
having it pop a settler or a worker unit might be an idea
Both of these would be incredibly powerful in the early game. As in vanilla, things like this will only be available on the very lowest difficulty levels.

Ok. I tested again so I played Emperor and I started a new game choosing Harkonnen/Mammoth/Epic : From the botanical gardens I received:
*a quad (-20% poor condition)
*an infantry (when I and the enemies only had soldiers)
*another infantry
Wow, I have never managed to get three units. Perhaps because of the Mammoth map size. I normally play on standard, or large at the biggest.
I'm surprised though, if you're playing a really big map, I would think that enemy factions would be far enough away that they'd have some defense by the time you got to them, and that you'd start losing units to or taking damage from waterstealers or other barbarians.
Epic gamespeed also contributes obviously, because it takes more turns for the AI to build up defenses, and so the free units are coming even earlier in a relative sense.

We could increase the poorly maintained penalty to 30%, and/or add city attack penalty.

But we don't want the bonuses to be too weak. Part of the point was to really try to keep away from "dud" benefits like revealed maps.

clearbeard
Dec 18, 2010, 08:22 AM
I just wrote a really long post describing our challenge with this, but then somehow hit the back button in my browser, and lost the post. Sorry, can't repeat it.

Summary version:
Current implementation has sandrider only for melee, not guardsmen.
Its problematic to change this, and to remove suspensors because of:
a) AI issues
b) Unit roles (we don't want too many roles filled by too many units)
c) Empty tech-tree (we don't want too many techs empty/useless for Fremen)
d) Balance (we want Fremen in deserts to be vulnerable to thopters and hornets)

We've thought about this before, and ideally we'd like Fremen to be even more different, but its hard to implement.


Yet another new player here, and like many I seem to have been tempted by the Fremen out of the gate. Anyway, I'm having the same problem with infantry and defending my settlements. The core of the problem is, when I tech to be able to build Infantry, who cannot enter desert on foot, I can no longer build soldiers, who can. Fremen don't get scout thopters as an early transport, which means cities on other rock formations (and my starting rock pad was quite small) at best can only be defended by fremen scouts until they can build their own defenders. Makes escorting settlers against barbarian threats a wee bit difficult as well, if only strength 1 units are available for the duty.

As a fix, I'd be happy with soldiers not going obsolete so quickly. If I could move a soldier with my settler, then even upgrade it to infantry in the new city if necessary, that would be fine.

Anyway, loving it so far. I'm probably going to abandon this game and start a new one, since expansion is so stifled currently, but that's okay. Haven't noticed anything glaringly in need of change otherwise. Sandworms seem rather tame with their slow movement, but that could easily be a factor of playing the Fremen. And I agree that early vultures from goody huts seem very powerful, though I did not use mine very aggressively (or effectively: I like to scout the map too much), from reading others' comments.

Edit: A minor bug I came across starting my new game: When regenerating the map (Arrakis type, haven't tried archipelago), all the spice disappears.

Another question: what happens with the Tlielaxu religion's founding if there are more than one player of that faction? Will both factions get the religion, with one being the "founder"? With only 9 factions, this is quite likely for default settings on maps larger than "large."

Ahriman
Dec 18, 2010, 10:12 AM
The core of the problem is, when I tech to be able to build Infantry, who cannot enter desert on foot, I can no longer build soldiers, who can.
Hi clearbeard, interesting, I've never had a problem with this before. My advice: beeline for crysknife fighters. They are awesome, and fairly low tech.

Or head for Fanaticism.

Fremen already have the best early expansion in the game, with mobile settlers, +1 water from Deathstills and then the pwnage crysknife fighter. I'm not sure that its a problem if they have a brief period where they can't defend overseas settlements with units not built there.

I'm not sure if its possible to have Infantry not make soldiers obsolete without also preventing soldiers from upgrading to infantry.

I think its rare to get a very small start position, but even if it happens, that happens in vanilla Civ too; sometimes you get a poor start.

When regenerating the map (Arrakis type, haven't tried archipelago), all the spice disappears.
The mod is not really designed to use the Regenerate Map button.
If you have a start position you don't want to play, then re-create a new game. Sorry.

clearbeard
Dec 18, 2010, 01:04 PM
...I'm not sure if its possible to have Infantry not make soldiers obsolete without also preventing soldiers from upgrading to infantry....

The mod is not really designed to use the Regenerate Map button.
If you have a start position you don't want to play, then re-create a new game. Sorry.

If soldiers can also upgrade into chrysknife fighters, they will not become unbuildable until you can build both infantry and fighters, so that would be an option to close the hole. That's a general truism for any unit that has multiple upgrade options: they don't obsolete until all possible upgrades are available. Thanks for the tip though, still exploring the tech tree and units list, didn't realize a better unit was coming so soon.

As for regenerate map, no worries. As I mentioned, it's minor. I'm a weak early game player, but strong later game. I usually like to get a map position that stacks things somewhat in my favor at first, but play on a higher difficulty, so I tend to regenerate a lot. Means I don't get creamed in the ancient era, but still can have fun in modern times (in vanilla, same idea in mods).

Ahriman
Dec 18, 2010, 07:41 PM
If soldiers can also upgrade into chrysknife fighters, they will not become unbuildable until you can build both infantry and fighters, so that would be an option to close the hole

Hmm. Would that mess things up for Non-Fremen though, and make their soldier not go obsolete?
Even non-Fremen can technically build the Crysknife fighter, though in practice its basically impossible to get an AI Fremen to trade you Water Debt that early in the game.
I don't think we want people to be able to build soldiers past the early game; its an easy way to abuse hereditary rule for happiness and to just choke the enemy with spam units.

clearbeard
Dec 18, 2010, 09:56 PM
Hmm. Would that mess things up for Non-Fremen though, and make their soldier not go obsolete?
Even non-Fremen can technically build the Crysknife fighter, though in practice its basically impossible to get an AI Fremen to trade you Water Debt that early in the game.
I don't think we want people to be able to build soldiers past the early game; its an easy way to abuse hereditary rule for happiness and to just choke the enemy with spam units.

Implications on top of implications with this new game. I love it! I believe that yes, that would be the case. I decided to play Fremen again in my new game, and with a little better planning, it's not an issue at all, waiting for chrysknifes.

New question:

What's the rationale behind the 7-wonder per city limit? That's a big enough change in my book to warrant its own note on the Dune Concepts 'pedia page. Personally, the 2 national wonder limit in vanilla was one of my least favorite features, so this one bugs be a bit on first glance (and I've already removed it for my game, but to each their own). I'm just curious about the change.

And this one's a real (if small) bug:
Melee units, such as the Mahdi Mujahid I'm about to slaughter the Atreides with cannot take the Zeal III promotion (yes, I have Zeal II and prescience). If you look at their 'pedia entry, or the one for any melee unit, the tooltip over the Zeal III icon says they are eligible for the "water insects" promotion instead. It appears that PROMOTION_ZEAL3, PROMOTION_WATER_INSECTS, and PROMOTION_SUSPENSOR_REMOVE all reference the same button art index, "dunepromoatlas2.dds,3,3" so perhaps that's the source of the issue?

Jester Fool
Dec 19, 2010, 03:00 AM
<snip>Just want you to know Dune Wars values your feedback (I surely do).

TomChick
Dec 19, 2010, 10:02 PM
I presume this is a minor and easily fixable bug, but I don't get the shield effect for all my cities with force shields. It's not a big deal, but my OCD kicks in when I see an unshielded city that is, in fact, shielded.

-Tom

Crighton
Dec 22, 2010, 07:59 AM
A minor thought occurred to me: Why are the barbarians in Dune Wars called the Arrakeen? Shouldn't they be called the Jotakoru, which was the water stealing tribe. I can't remeber if they're in Children of Dune or in Dune Messiah, but their backstory was they stole everybodies water and all the fremen tribes united against them, thought them extict and their home seitch was considered a place of evil and magic.

Deliverator
Dec 22, 2010, 08:05 AM
I did some testing with INITIAL_GOLD_PER_UNIT to 2.
AI autoplays seemed to lead to basically the same AI scores with and without the change.

I don't think it makes much difference to the AI, because on the low difficulty levels (AI effectively plays on Noble) the player gets a lot of free units, so unit maintenance isn't such a pain.

I think we should seriously consider making this change.

I'll try to do some human-playtesting and see if the game "feels" differently.

If the effect is not noticeable doesn't that defeat the object? Don't we want unit maintenance to be something the player needs to pay attention to? Perhaps we should also reduce the free unit amounts.

Ahriman
Dec 22, 2010, 10:30 AM
If the effect is not noticeable doesn't that defeat the object?
Not necessarily; its fine for the effect to not be noticeable to the AI. We ideally want the effect to be noticeable to the human player though.

I haven't done enough late-game testing to see how much the difference is for the human player.

As an experiment: I could set the parameter to 1, play a normal game aimed at building lots of units, and then halfway into the game exit, change the xml value to 2, load the save-game and see how much the difference is.

We could consider reducing free units.

Deliverator
Dec 22, 2010, 02:20 PM
A minor thought occurred to me: Why are the barbarians in Dune Wars called the Arrakeen? Shouldn't they be called the Jotakoru, which was the water stealing tribe. I can't remeber if they're in Children of Dune or in Dune Messiah, but their backstory was they stole everybodies water and all the fremen tribes united against them, thought them extict and their home seitch was considered a place of evil and magic.

This has to work as a prefix to Sandworm as well as Infantry, Waterstealer, etc since there is only one Barbarian civ. Arrakeen Sandworm works ok since Arrakeen is the adjective for Arrakis (as well as being a city which is the confusing bit).

If you mean Jacurutu, I've thought of reworking the city naming logic so that the Barbarians have their own list again. That way we can have Waterstealers in Jacurutu and Shuloch etc. The Water Insect promo is a little nod to the Iduali (http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Iduali).

Deliverator
Jan 29, 2011, 10:03 AM
Is there any particular reason why we made the change below? People are complaining that Hornets on a Suspensor Carrier cannot be set to Intercept as in vanilla and this change is why.

bool CvUnit::canAirDefend(const CvPlot* pPlot) const
{
...
// davidlallen: allterrain action start
if (isCargo())
{
return false;
}
// davidlallen: allterrain action end

I think I'll comment this out unless anyone has a good reason not to.

God-Emperor
Jan 29, 2011, 11:06 AM
I expect this is to prevent land units from doing interceptions while they are loaded onto transports (which makes sense - it is hard to shoot down an air unit if you are inside a vehicle and can't even see the sky, unless you want your troops to shoot holes in the roof).

So instead of commenting it out, you could add a check to see if it is a DOMAIN_AIR unit and not return false if it is to allow them to intercept (or check to see if it is DOMAIN_LAND unit and block it only if it is).

Deliverator
Jan 30, 2011, 09:36 PM
So instead of commenting it out, you could add a check to see if it is a DOMAIN_AIR unit and not return false if it is to allow them to intercept (or check to see if it is DOMAIN_LAND unit and block it only if it is).

Good idea - I'll do that.

Edit: I noticed that the additional code posted above wasn't necessary because it's handled in the unofficial patch patch code below.

bool CvUnit::canAirDefend(const CvPlot* pPlot) const
{
...
if (getDomainType() != DOMAIN_AIR)
{
/************************************************** **********************************************/
/* UNOFFICIAL_PATCH 10/30/09 Mongoose & jdog5000 */
/* */
/* Bugfix */
/************************************************** **********************************************/
/* original bts code
if (!pPlot->isValidDomainForLocation(*this))
*/
// From Mongoose SDK
// Land units which are cargo cannot intercept
if (!pPlot->isValidDomainForLocation(*this) || isCargo())
/************************************************** **********************************************/
/* UNOFFICIAL_PATCH END */
/************************************************** **********************************************/
{
return false;
}
}

Ahriman
Jan 31, 2011, 09:26 AM
I do definitely remember in one previous version of Dune Wars that cargo missile troopers were intercepting aircraft; I suspect David added that code specifically to try to fix the problem.
So this is something to make sure we test.

Praylak
Apr 08, 2011, 12:04 PM
Glad to be back playing this mod again. You guys have made some spectacular improvements since I last played! I especially appreciate the spice victory, new graphics and music.

I' haven't had any issues, although I haven't seen late game yet (restart syndrome, :)). I do have a few questions, and I apologize if they have already been answered somewhere but my search failed to pick it up...

1) Is the economic screen working correctly, expenses namely? With all the units I have I'm still not paying any upkeep for them. City maintence is registering, and income side seems fine.

2) I'm a little confused about the Polar shipper building. Does this only increase water for cities in polar regions with the resource being worked? It does not actually 'ship' water anywhere, right?

3) Just for flavour, I'd suggest the 'spice worker' be changed to a type of vulnerable carryall (same move as the worker, but its a non-combative carryall). The time spent on location to build harvesters could be seen as deployment and recovery of such. This may seem like a mundane request, but I beleive it would add allot of atmposhere to the whole spice process as it matches up with the lore.

4) Do you think Harkonnenns could use a early-ish or mid game UU infantry? What were those guys called in Children of Dune, or was it Dune 2000? They had wicked looking red uniforms, a six barreled gun, but the Fremen tore them up in melee. I guess they'd be a type of Master Guardsmen replacement?

5) Have you actually seen mines on mesa's discover a mineral resource? In one game I had many mines all over the place, even still after I could have built the slighlty more benefical turbine imporvements. Never seen it happen once. How does that 2% chance work? Does the tile have to be worked in order for a chance to fire? I think it should be low yes, but it does actually fire?

Thanks.

clearbeard
Apr 08, 2011, 02:26 PM
Glad to be back playing this mod again. You guys have made some spectacular improvements since I last played! I especially appreciate the spice victory, new graphics and music.

I' haven't had any issues, although I haven't seen late game yet (restart syndrome, :)). I do have a few questions, and I apologize if they have already been answered somewhere but my search failed to pick it up...

1) Is the economic screen working correctly, expenses namely?

2) I'm a little confused about the Polar shipper building.

3) Just for flavour, I'd suggest the 'spice worker' be changed to a type of vulnerable carryall

4) Do you think Harkonnenns could use a early-ish or mid game UU infantry?

5) Have you actually seen mines on mesa's discover a mineral resource?

Thanks.

1) Seems this would depend on your civic choices. Some options give you quite high unit support caps, which is based on total size of your cities, just like in vanilla civ.

2) Polar water shipper is built in any city, and adds water to that city based on the total number of polar ice your civ controls (and has hooked up to your trade network), similar to how spice works in your capitol.

3) Sounds neat, but tricky and might involve a prohibitive amount of micromanagement. I like the current system myself, if the AI can be taught to exploit it properly.

4) My general leaning is away from scads of UU's cluttering up the table of organization. I think that restrictions in place between factions on what types of units are built (e.g. Fremen not building vehicles), plus 1-2 UU per civ, and added to the unique (but excess and trade-able) resource units works well.

5) Not in this mod that I recall, but it is an exceedingly rare occurrence in vanilla civ as well, with no more than 1-2 resources typically popping from mines in an extended game.

tesb
Apr 10, 2011, 03:49 AM
Hi deliverator, i was trying the latest ground version + patch from the welcome thread and i get multiple xml errors when i start the mod:

for example:
TERRAIN_SPICE_OCEAN in Info class was incorrect
current XML file is: xml\Technolgies/CIV4TechInfos.xml

similar i get TERRAIN_SPICE_COAST

and some technologies xml errors.

i uninstalled my old version and installed 1.9 + latest patch. i tried it two times by now (downloaded it 2 times) but it is still there so i guess it is not a corrupted download.

is there a known fix?

secondly any news on 2.0?

Praylak
Apr 10, 2011, 10:41 AM
2) Polar water shipper is built in any city, and adds water to that city based on the total number of polar ice your civ controls (and has hooked up to your trade network), similar to how spice works in your capitol.

5) Not in this mod that I recall, but it is an exceedingly rare occurrence in vanilla civ as well, with no more than 1-2 resources typically popping from mines in an extended game.

Re:2
Thats how I thought it worked, but it turns out my city in the polar region is not connected to my trade network. I have researched Dune topography, but it still remains unconnected. I don't see how to connect it?

Re:5
I finally witnessed it, does happen, but extremely rare.

tesb
Apr 10, 2011, 05:21 PM
Hi deliverator, i was trying the latest ground version + patch from the welcome thread and i get multiple xml errors when i start the mod:

for example:
TERRAIN_SPICE_OCEAN in Info class was incorrect
current XML file is: xml\Technolgies/CIV4TechInfos.xml

similar i get TERRAIN_SPICE_COAST

and some technologies xml errors.

i uninstalled my old version and installed 1.9 + latest patch. i tried it two times by now (downloaded it 2 times) but it is still there so i guess it is not a corrupted download.

is there a known fix?

secondly any news on 2.0?

ok i tried 1.9 without the patch and it works. so it seems the latest patch (1.9.1.2) is breaking the game, giving xml errors. it seems strange though that nobody else has reported it.


edit: using dune-wars-patch-1-9-0-1 works fine too it is dune-wars-patch-1-9-1-2 which causes the trouble.

davidlallen
Apr 10, 2011, 06:41 PM
Please note that to use 1.9.1.2, you must install 1.9.1 first. Several people have missed this, and gotten related errors.

tesb
Apr 10, 2011, 08:18 PM
oh thank you i will try.

you may want to post 1.9.1 in welcome thread too. right now there is only the link to 1.9 and 1.9.1.2

edit: 1.9.1b is a base download like 1.9 or do i need 1.9 + 1.9.1b + 1.9.1.2?

my guess is that 1.9.1b + 1.9.1.2 is sufficient.

i would really like to see 2.0 to get rid of those confusing version numbers :D

davidlallen
Apr 11, 2011, 09:20 AM
my guess is that 1.9.1b + 1.9.1.2 is sufficient.

That is correct.

joefriendgood
Apr 11, 2011, 07:51 PM
Soooo....is it quiet around here because 2.0 is on the way?

Brugarin
Apr 12, 2011, 03:39 AM
I'm drooling in anticipation! Until then my devastators will crush some more fremen scum.

davidlallen
Apr 12, 2011, 10:13 AM
It is quiet around here because the main implementor for the past year, deliverator, is quiet. I have not done any development on DW for 1+ years. It may be worthwhile to just combine 1.9.1 and 1.9.1.2 into 2.0 and release it for ease of maintenance.

Praylak
Apr 12, 2011, 11:49 AM
Re:2
Thats how I thought it worked, but it turns out my city in the polar region is not connected to my trade network. I have researched Dune topography, but it still remains unconnected. I don't see how to connect it?

I have found there are two polar terrian types missing from the techs that allow network connection for trade and resource purposes. Water Transportation and Dune Topography have Polar listed, but not Polar desert waste, nor polar sink. This would explain why polar region cities cannot connect, and the water shipper building does not function as a result. I imagine it got left out or forgotten when the Polar region got reworked sometime during v1.9.1 ? ( http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362479&page=2 )

I have added these terrian types to the tech Dune Topography, and I'm now testing it in a new game.

Praylak
Apr 13, 2011, 01:28 AM
Yup, works as intended now. Here is the corrected file...

http://www.4shared.com/document/FBl5GNWV/CIV4TechInfos.html

joefriendgood
Apr 15, 2011, 08:20 PM
It is quiet around here because the main implementor for the past year, deliverator, is quiet. I have not done any development on DW for 1+ years. It may be worthwhile to just combine 1.9.1 and 1.9.1.2 into 2.0 and release it for ease of maintenance.

Well that is unfortunate. Dune Wars is one of the top five mods I have ever played across all genres. It really is special. If this is the end, then let's enjoy what we have been able to play so far.Thank you.

davidlallen
Apr 16, 2011, 01:40 PM
Lots of mods go through quiet periods. I would not say this is the "end" by any means.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 20, 2011, 06:05 PM
Just having come back to play this mod again after about a year, I have to say it's one of the most polished and most balanced (and fun) mods I've played at this point. I've only noted a few things that were off. One is the same polar sink issue seen in the above posts (with the same fix I was about to do myself, good job :goodjob:).

The other is the uselessness of the ginaz training xp bonus, as mentioned in another thread I read here yesterday. The obvious fix (I think it was on Deliverator's to do list) is fractional xp. Since I've coded that in before in my personal RevDCM/LOR based mod, I decided yesterday to add it in to the DuneWars source code. I'm using a base 10 system(only one decimal accuracy -- e.i. 2.0 -- 2.1 -- 2.2 -- etc)) as more than that is unnecessary (who needs 2.14 experience... really?) and keeps the interface cleaner. I've just compiled my changes and will test it on a game or two. If anyone still around on the team is interested in adding it in, I'll be glad to send you the altered(and well commented) code. It's built on the source included in the latest patch (with a few python and xml changes to bring everything inline with the code base changes). If there's an svn(or other working copy somewhere) with any additional changes since that patch, it'd need to be merged, but that wouldn't be difficult.

Chris

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 20, 2011, 08:45 PM
A question while I'm rooting around in the code, is the bonuses for zeal 1 & 2 for enemy territory and cities actually implemented? Hopefully one of you (David/Arihman) might know for sure, but my first look at it seems to show that the only part actually implemented is the promotions help text, everything else I've looked at so far (still looking into it) is commented out, meaning... I don't think those tags are actually doing anything at present:crazyeye:. If that proves to be the case, I could also get those up and working, built into the combat odds, etc.

Chris

davidlallen
Apr 20, 2011, 11:19 PM
There isn't any svn or source repository. We rarely had more than one person developing at a time, and when we had multiple people, each was working in a different area. I haven't looked at the zeal code, and Ahriman didn't implement any of the code, but perhaps deliverator will come back and comment.

If you have working changes, please zip the changed files and attach them to a post. If you are interested, it would be great to collect the two or three recent fixes, along with 1.9.1 and 1.9.1.2, and collect them into a new combined release. It could be called 1.9.2. If you're interested but would like help on creating the release, I can give you the info.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 21, 2011, 06:04 AM
I'd love to. I've already got the polar region fix by Praylak in my working copy, and early tests (after a few typical oversight bugs were fixed) on the fractional xp changes seem to be going well.

Another small item I've noticed is that fremen workers at the beginning of the game have sandrider, but after getting the stillsuits technology, they auto auquire sandworker, blocking them from recieving sandrider (since the python code adding it occurs after the auto-acquire code on unit init). I don't think this is intended... get a new technology, yea!, now all your new workers are slower? doh.

The fix should be to check for and remove the sandworker promo in the python before it tries adding the sandrider promo, a whole two lines of code I just inserted :). I'm about to test that.

If there are any other small or needed fixes that I can look at while I'm at it, this would be a good place to point to where they've been mentioned, or... mention them here. Also David, what other recent fixes are there to include. I don't want to miss anything for not having read the right thread.

Edit:
I'll maintain a list here of possible fixes/improvements to include and status:

- Polar region trade routes - fixed (thanks Prylak)
- Polar sink terreforming/improvements? - where do we want to go with this
- Fractional XP - in testing
- Fremen Workers' sandrider promo - fixed
- Zeal Promotion Implementation
- Stillsuit goody hut result needs to be skipped if you already have sandrider - in testing
- Limit default players on larger maps (see this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=418388)) - done
- possible inquisitor issue? need confirmation or testing

Chris

BvBPL
Apr 22, 2011, 10:12 AM
For my money, I think it’d be nice if multiples of the same faction could be played on the same map, assuming they could all access their special off-world resources and that all other functions worked fine. That seems like a tall order though given how the off-world resources system works and how the Twilkeau faction, in particular, works.

davidlallen
Apr 22, 2011, 02:58 PM
I'll maintain a list here of possible fixes/improvements to include and status:
- Polar region trade routes - fixed (thanks Prylak)
- Fractional XP - in testing
- Fremen Workers' sandrider promo - fixed
- Zeal Promotion Implementation
- Stillsuit goody hut result needs to be skipped if you already have sandrider - in testing
- Limit default players on larger maps
There are no other problems I am aware of, although it may be worthwhile to scan the recent threads with reports:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=399551
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362479
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=325309
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=335213

This thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=359970)should describe everything you need to know to make a release. I recommend "1.9.2" rather than "2.0" since everybody's expectation for the contents of a "2.0" release may be quite large. I could even go for "1.10", some companies number their releases like this.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 22, 2011, 06:53 PM
For my money, I think it’d be nice if multiples of the same faction could be played on the same map, assuming they could all access their special off-world resources and that all other functions worked fine. That seems like a tall order though given how the off-world resources system works and how the Twilkeau faction, in particular, works.

My guess is that given it's as simple as one Ix player (for example) already got Ixian weapons before the other, I can add in the check to see if the second Ix player can import it a special rule where you're controlled resource is still available to the second instance of the Civ (e.i. the second Ix to build a starport still has Ixian weapons available). To balance this, the second to import it maybe only gets 1 instead of 3(none to trade, just one for himself) to reward the first guy somewhat for getting there first.

At any rate, I haven't looked at that code at all yet. I'll almost certainly just reduce the default players for a 1.92 release, and maybe look into this system later, along with any other duplicate civ related bugs. It'll require some special testing.

From this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10099083&postcount=47):
In the new version with the polar sink change; we need to change the improvement entires so they're buildable.

I was able to build turbines and cottages on the polar terrain (should be cottage and solar farm) and was unable to build anything on the polar sink terrain (should be cottage and solar farm).

Along similar lines, we should check to make sure that both polar and polar sink can terraform, and that forests can grow in polar sink/sinks.

I like the look of it though, and I imagine it should make the AI better at warring over it when its a single landmass.

I don't know if we'd want the polar sinks to terraform or not (I'm a little skeptical of turning any polar region into lush grassland), though it should probably have the improvements possible... thoughts?

From this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10399632&postcount=56):
- Tooltip for Slig resource still mentions the Slig Charcuterie building, which is not buildable. (Was removed with 1.9 Beta I believe.)
- Polar Sink does not allow trade, as fada85 mentions above. Not sure if this is intended behavior.
- The Inquisitor seems to be missing the ability to remove religions; odd, since this is specifically what the unit is for.
- Annex City espionage mission causes a CTD or game hang sometimes. (Also mentioned elsewhere on the forums.) In one game I took a city from the Tleilaxu but later, when I was at war with them, I experienced a CTD/hang when attempting to annex another one. (I had hoped to take the city through espionage and then move in my occupation force of Fish Speakers )

The polar sink is fixed (for trade at least), and the Annex City bug has been an issue for a while, maybe I'll look into the code there, see if I see anything hinky. As for the Slig resource, and more importantly the inquisitor issue, can anyone else verify it, I haven't tried using an inquisitor yet and will have to test it see if it's an actual issue or not.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 22, 2011, 07:37 PM
Fractional XP
As for new items, I've run several games now with the fractional xp in place without issue, so it so far seems good. It feels to me to fit the future setting to have more precision in this kind of thing too (as opposed to a Fall from Heaven type mod where I think it would feel out of place), but that's just me.

More importantly perhaps, my personal feeling is that the leadership promo is a wee bit overpowered, but using a smaller percentage on it before wasn't wise because you'd get the same issue as with the ginaz promos in an integer based xp system. I'd propose changing it to maybe 75% where it's still powerful but not an automatic gimme gimme for leaders.

Another consideration here is that units will on average gain more xp from combat than before. This is because, to give a hypothetical, a combat situation where victory would give in a fractional system 1.2xp, in an integer system gives 1xp. 1.6xp = 1xp. 2.3xp = 2xp. You get the point, it's almost always rounding down. The only case where this isn't the case is low xp situations (.5xp - .9xp) where it did round up before to the 1xp minimum. I think the amount of extra xp is fine (and balanced by the potentially lower xp in low risk fights) and doesn't cause a problem for normal units (feels very natural as I've played games with it), but it increases the power of a 100% xp boost that much more.

Just as a general note by the way, the new minimum xp from a fight (and xp from retreating) is 0.5.:)

New Spy Behaivor
I've also made a change to the way espionage units return after a mission or being detected but escaping. Vanilla behavior is to return to the capital, even if the unit was on the other side of the planet, and you have a perfectly good city to retreat to 10 tiles away. In such cases I try to make things act in a way that makes sense -- not a way that's quick and easy to code.

The new behavior picks the three nearest cities(owned by the unit's player obviously), weights them based on the ratio of their distance, and then adds in a slight random element. Without going into the nuts and bolts, the nearer the city, the more likely that's the city it'll return to, though where several cities are relatively similar distances, it won't go to the same one every time (thought still will go to closer cities more often). This is done just to increase immersion and make it less mechanical. Overly mechanical and predictable systems remind you too much you're in a game in my opinion, though the balance between transparency and randomness is always an important balancing act.

I'll definitely use this new system personally, but, as always (given this isn't my mod and all;)) feedback is extremely welcome on it's inclusion.

Just one more note on the subject in case it comes up, the major gameplay impact of this (other than a little less human frustration hopefully) is that given a sufficient supply of espionage points, and a nearby base, a lot more espionage missions can be conducted by a single spy in less time on areas distant from the capital. I personally don't think the primary limit on the frequency of conducting spy missions in such a case should be the travel time there, but rather you're supply of espionage points, and the risk you're willing to take in getting that spy caught (as the more time in enemy territory and the more missions attempted, the more likely he/she will be caught.) So, on those grounds, I personally think it makes for better gameplay.

Chris

davidlallen
Apr 22, 2011, 08:34 PM
I am not usually a fan of changing game functions just because we can; I'd rather make changes which specifically increase the feeling of a setting. Still, fractional XP and the new spy return idea sound worthwhile.

At any rate, I haven't looked at that code at all yet. I'll almost certainly just reduce the default players for a 1.92 release, and maybe look into this system later, along with any other duplicate civ related bugs. It'll require some special testing.

There is definitely more to it. The Tleilaxu plague in particular makes assumptions that there is only one player of this civ. Most of the other civs have special python code also, which would need to be reviewed.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 22, 2011, 09:01 PM
I am not usually a fan of changing game functions just because we can; I'd rather make changes which specifically increase the feeling of a setting. Still, fractional XP and the new spy return idea sound worthwhile.

Agreed, I think a lot of mods go overboard with changes and lose focus - and balance - as a result. I'm a fan of small targeted changes that accomplish specific goals. I think both fit that goal and the feel of the mod, while keeping the existing balance in tact, and improve playability.

There is definitely more to it. The Tleilaxu plague in particular makes assumptions that there is only one player of this civ. Most of the other civs have special python code also, which would need to be reviewed.

That's why I said it's better left to a latter date too (if needed at all) when it could be looked at and tested specifically. I'm rather aware it'd be involved, and might just not be worth it. Also, with the proposed limit to default players, someone wanting more than 9 civs, despite the potential issues, can still set it up in a custom game, so we're not limiting someone's options, just keeping new players from accidentally walking into said issues without knowing why.

Edit:
Sometime in the next few days I'll put up a beta patch in this thread for testing, as soon as I get to look at the zeal promo stuff.

Chris

Folket
Apr 23, 2011, 01:51 AM
I prefer to have spies return to the capital. if you return to a close city you will never need more then one spy and the spy war will loose alot of depth. Now you will need to consider a lot more when selecting target and you need to invest in more spies since they do not get where they are going so fast. Also shorter travel times would give your spies XP/promotions faster.

If espionage points are not a limiting factor you would do well just to build more spies.

bradley364
Apr 23, 2011, 03:00 AM
Hey guys, this mod looks awesome but I'm having a few problems...

Firstly, and most importantly, when I start a new game I have no UI to speak of. What is going on?!

Also, from the main menu, I can't access the Civopedia at all. Nothing happens when I click it, the screen just flashes a bit. I can't use it ingame obviously cause there is no UI!

Does anyone know whats going on?

Edit:

Alright, so I uninstalled the mod and just reinstalled the base download. Everything appears to be working. Orignally, I installed the base, then a patch called 1.9.0.1 and then installed 1.9.1.2. Then finally the optional music.

I'm now assuming I should go:

Base
1.9.1.2 patch
music

Am I right? Skipping 1.9.0.1 completely? If so, there really needs to be better instructions cause I believe I missed that concept completely.

EDIT FOR GREAT JUSTICE:

Alright, I just tried what I did above, it was even worse then before, as I got a ton of errors as the game was loading, and the Civopedia was down once again. Can someone give me the correct install order?

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 23, 2011, 07:21 AM
yes, it's confusing because the welcome page gives 1.9 as the main download when the newest one is actually 1.9.1... then gives the link for the latest patch for 1.9.1 which isn't compatible with 1.9. yeah, confusing, I know. In david's defense, the next link under the patch that says 'release notes' leads to the correct files, but I think he needs to replace the link going to 1.9 as the main download with the link to 1.9.1 to really avoid this mess. I did the same thing too and had to search several threads to find the answer.

Anyway, delete what you have installed, follow this link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10096964&postcount=36), and install the 1.9.1 full download, then the 1.9.1.2 patch for it. After that you should be able to install the music pack if you want as well.

Chris

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 23, 2011, 07:51 AM
I prefer to have spies return to the capital. if you return to a close city you will never need more then one spy and the spy war will loose alot of depth. Now you will need to consider a lot more when selecting target and you need to invest in more spies since they do not get where they are going so fast. Also shorter travel times would give your spies XP/promotions faster.

If espionage points are not a limiting factor you would do well just to build more spies.

Thanks for the feedback Folket, that's why I'm putting this out there, to see if people think it's a good idea and discuss it. My counter is that you still need more than one spy, firstly because spies get caught... no matter how good they are, they always get caught if you keep sending them I've found. As for needing fewer spies, yes, which I actually like myself, I don't find enjoyment in having to have six or seven spies just so there's always a couple in transit to far flung places. Feels to me, again, personally, like micromanagement, not strategy.

The fact is, espionage in CIV has always been something of a suboptimal use of production compared to just pumping out units and conquering an enemy(or defending your empire) or building buildings that make your existing cities better. I think the generally lower espionage points in DW improves this, but it remains something you do kind of consciously knowing that production is better spent somewhere else, but hey, it's espionage, it's fun. I'm sure there are arguments against what I just said and examples where it can be very powerful. But I also think the majority of players will agree you can win a game without building one espionage unit, you can't without building lots of military units... So something that boosts it's use a little is a good thing in my eyes.

The other thing I'll argue is that this system rewards the player for establishing (:devil: or conquering :devil:), and defending, a base close to a target. Not always all that easy or wise of a thing to do close to powerful enemies. It also can maybe give a little more individuality to spies, as one working in a certain area kind of has an area he/she is operating in, as opposed to just being shoved back to capital with all the rest (this I realize is a likely unimportant to some folks and a minor point, but for those who role-play a bit more in the game, it can prove true nonetheless).

Finally, and linking to the previous point, travel times are only low if you have nearby cities, and if you're attacking the same area repeatedly. Since most factions only have a small handful of missions, and they last a while, after hitting one city, you usually will be wanting to go somewhere else that may or may not be anywhere close to the area you just hit.

Anyway, that's kinda my rational, but I'm happy to discuss it further. I never consider myself above being wrong ;).

Chris

clearbeard
Apr 23, 2011, 09:10 AM
Fractional XP

Just as a general note by the way, the new minimum xp from a fight (and xp from retreating) is 0.5.:)



I'm willing to give a test game a try, but at first glance I don't like this minimum at all. My play style tends to go for heavy threat reduction through bombardment, artillery, etc. followed by attacks that generally have 99%+ odds. I find any other combat method untenable in the face of an AI that only balances higher difficulties by having hugely superior numbers of units. It's frustrating enough to have to fight 20 battles to gain an experience level. Fighting multiple battles to gain even one XP feels like an exercise in frustration.

Particularly I've always thought 1 XP for a successful retreat to be unconscionably low. Halving it further halved seems like a mistake. I'm more familiar with vanilla scenarios, so for example, consider the last in a line of heroic cavalry charging a stack of 50 units, who successfully makes his raid and kills 8 enemy artillery units before they can rain fiery death down on his friends and family in the city he defends. For all his efforts against impossible odds he gets... 0.5 XP. Or the cannon who risks a mere 10% chance of withdrawal to soften up the invading horde to allow his compatriots to avenge his death, yet manages to survive against all odds, to be rewarded for his miracle with... 0.5 XP.

Just a thought...

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 23, 2011, 09:46 AM
It's a legitimate concern, but in my playtesting, 0.5 is a very rare outcome. The truth is most of those 1xp situations you normally see fall in the 0.8 to 1.9 range, which leads to the situation of actually getting more xp on average as I said before.

I'm used to attacking around at least 90-95% odds though, so bombardment heavy strategies could potentially result in a lot of less than 1.0xp situations. I see a lot of attacks yielding higher than 2.0 and 3.0 xp myself though.

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/4034/image1trv.jpg
as you can see in this image, even very high combat odds can result in decent xp (99.68% of victory/ 1.6xp). The main area you'll see them get very low is where the enemy has almost no hp left.

However, changing it back to a 1xp minimum in as simple as changing one value in GlobalDefines.xml too ;). I'm thinking the beta patch I'll release will use the 0.5 min, and if testing shows it should be higher, I can put it at 1.0xp min for the 1.9.2 release. But even if I do release it at 0.5xp, it's very easy to change it to 1.0 yourself afterwards (very easy), so don't worry :).

Also, I've changing the annoying "You've won against all odds, but... the defender retreated so... yeah.., you get nothing" scenario. I'm testing it where the attacker gets half the xp he would have gotten for the victory still (another thing the fractional xp makes possible). So in the above example, if the roller manages to retreat, my attacker still gets 0.8xp.

Or the cannon who risks a mere 10% chance of withdrawal to soften up the invading horde to allow his compatriots to avenge his death, yet manages to survive against all odds, to be rewarded for his miracle with... 0.5 XP

This is another area to look at I think... siege units withdrawing (not retreating) by reaching their combat limit should receive xp based on the risk of the attack just like any other attack I would think. This is different from the cavalry example in that the cav(in DW terms, ornithopter) essentially lost the fight, but managed to survive(I prefer to call this a retreat as opposed to a siege unit's withdrawal, but the game currently reports both as a withdrawal). The min xp from combat and the xp from retreat are separate GlobalDefine values, I think you're right in 0.5xp for a retreat being too low. Should this also maybe be based on actual risk or just left at 1.0xp?

Folket
Apr 24, 2011, 01:22 AM
But i think returning to a close city will b e to strong for some nations like ben gesserit. Then they once they have an economy just continuously buy cities.

I do not think espionage is suboptimal in dune wars for nations like Ben Gesserit, Harkonnen and Ix.

Deliverator
Apr 24, 2011, 05:59 PM
Hey all. It's been a while. I had an extended stay in hospital but I'm ok now. :)

I'm happy that ChrisAdams3997 seems to be picking up where I left of. I'll post more tomorrow since I think I have some unreleased Dune Wars art lying around. I'll still probably pitch in with art and ideas, but I'm happy if Chris wants to handle coding and releases.

Catch you later.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 24, 2011, 07:15 PM
Hey, wow, I don't know what to say other than welcome back! Which feels a little wierd to me given that I was only really lurking back when you where around, but hey :D.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 24, 2011, 07:54 PM
But i think returning to a close city will b e to strong for some nations like ben gesserit. Then they once they have an economy just continuously buy cities.

I do not think espionage is suboptimal in dune wars for nations like Ben Gesserit, Harkonnen and Ix.

If someone actually finds that a fun way to play the game, then more power to them. Such exploitative gameplay is usually not much fun to most players I think, which means, as long as the game doesn't railroad them into a situation where it's the only optimal way to win, allowing the exploit is not catastrophic. This same exploit can be done now by just spitting out 5 reverend mothers (not that hard to do) and sending them all out and WHAM!!, bought half an enemy civ (assuming they are all successful). I'd personally never do that because it's boring. I use it very sparingly in situations where it's useful or fun.

Long story short, it's a question of design philosophies between trying to curb the possible exploits of a few gamers, or making it more fun for the rest. Like I said before, if the exploit isn't so strong that it becomes the only way to optimally play, I'm putting my money on a more fun system. And I think a system that arbitrarily (this is definitely an arbitrary game rule based in no form of reality) sends you back to the capital is certainly less fun. It's the kind of mechanistic game rule that removes a certain amount of emersion from the game and makes it more, ...gamey.

The last thing I want to say is I'm not attacking you for disagreeing, like I said, I think discussion is good. My play testing here, and using similar implementation before in a more vanilla civ setting, has never shown me any evidence of this change causing any imbalances, at least given my playstyle. I'm planning to release a beta 1.9.2 (if that's what we call the upcoming release) on tuesday afternoon so more people can give feedback than just me :lol:, so I'll be interested to see then how others find the feel of it. If it turns out your fears are well founded, it's easily removed before the real release.

clearbeard
Apr 24, 2011, 07:57 PM
If siege withdrawal could be folded into increased risk/increased reward, that would be great. Usually I assume siege units are more or less cruise missiles, at least for the first 1-2 hits on a city, and plan on replacing them with each battle. Real benefits for those rare 20% withdrawals would be cool. I also wholeheartedly like getting xp when the enemy flees before your might. Another vanilla annoyance fixed!

As for the general 0.5 minimum, I'm happy to give it a try, as I said. My suspicions could end up totally off base in an actual game. Another thought I just had is in regards to defensive victories. If the XP they give is globally half of what you get offensively, would defenders end up getting too little XP with a 0.5 minimum? Half XP on defense has always rankled me on principle, don't know how this would come out. Again, I'm happy to test at the lower value and see how it goes.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 24, 2011, 08:47 PM
Usually I assume siege units are more or less cruise missiles, at least for the first 1-2 hits on a city, and plan on replacing them with each battle.

I actually designed a wholly different approach to siege units in my personal RevDCM mod that addressed the whole 'suiciding catapults' issue, though it was much worse in vanilla civ than DW in my experience so far so I hadn't felt the need to propose any changes there.

In a nutshell, I limited the rounds of combat to a finite number (instead of swapping blows until the attacker dies or defender is brought to the combat limit), where a number of factors related to the defender's mobility (is the defender held down in a city, or in the open field, difference in movement points, terrain bonuses, etc.) determined by probability the number of first strikes the siege would get. So a siege unit attacking infantry in a city might expect to have 4 first strikes out of 6 combat rounds (on average, could be higher or lower), meaning only two chances (on average) to damage the attacking siege unit.

By contrast, attacking a highly mobile unit in the field, that same siege unit might only expect 2 first strikes out of 6 combat rounds, so much greater risk of being killed or at least taking more damage.

At the same time, the damage caused by the siege unit fell with the defender's hit points, so if you'd do 20 damage to a full health enemy, you're only doing maybe 12 damage when he's at half his health. This meant that attacking units already damaged would be less effective. This same principle applied to collateral damage as well, and is based on the idea that siege units work best when there is a lot to shoot at ;), but in a practical sense meant you could never really count on knocking your enemy down to 10% of his strength. Usually a determined and overwhelming siege assault might leave most enemies at around 30-50% health.

The total result is a system where siege units where much better balanced with the rest of the combat system. By this I mean you could expect them to actually survive a few battles without having to be two eras ahead of your enemies, but they also weren't uber weapons, there was a limit to how much they could do by themselves.

Anyway, back to what we're actually putting in for now...

As for the general 0.5 minimum, I'm happy to give it a try, as I said. My suspicions could end up totally off base in an actual game. Another thought I just had is in regards to defensive victories. If the XP they give is globally half of what you get offensively, would defenders end up getting too little XP with a 0.5 minimum? Half XP on defense has always rankled me on principle, don't know how this would come out. Again, I'm happy to test at the lower value and see how it goes.

If you're in such a superior defensive position that the enemy has no business attacking you, then yes, you'll get very little xp out of it. And for justifiable reasons I think. However, by using fractional xp, we can make smaller upward adjustments on how much xp you get from defending as opposed to attacking. Before, attack xp (as set in the units xml) was defined as 4 and defense xp as 2 for all but hornets (where both were 4). Now it's 40 and 20, where those represent 4.0 and 2.0 respectively. We can therefore for instance change the normal defense xp number to 2.5 so it's slightly more than half of the xp for a similar attack, if it proves necessary.

f siege withdrawal could be folded into increased risk/increased reward, that would be great

I'm definitely looking at this, the main problem with siege in my opinion is the whole combat limit idea. As techs advance, this number generally goes up, meaning the siege units can do more damage, but.... it also means they'll die more often at the same combat ratios as a unit with a lower combat limit because they have to do more damage before they pull out. Since the normal way of figuring xp from a battle is the essentially the combat ratio of the two units, it means higher combat limits increase the risk of each attack at the same combat ratios, but the xp would be the same despite the increased risk. I'll have to come up with a balanced numerical approach that gives appropriate rewards for the risk taken, and that will take some thought.

Chris

davidlallen
Apr 25, 2011, 09:33 AM
But i think returning to a close city will b e to strong for some nations like ben gesserit. Then they once they have an economy just continuously buy cities. I do not think espionage is suboptimal in dune wars for nations like Ben Gesserit, Harkonnen and Ix.
This same exploit can be done now by just spitting out 5 reverend mothers (not that hard to do) and sending them all out and WHAM!!, bought half an enemy civ (assuming they are all successful). I'd personally never do that because it's boring. I use it very sparingly in situations where it's useful or fun.

If people feel that the "annex city" ability is overpowered, we should increase the cost or reduce the chance of success. It is probably true that returning spies to the nearest city will make this ability stronger. Although some people may have "self control" to avoid using overpowered features, we should improve this for game balance. The cost and chance of success for this mission can easily be adjusted in the xml files.

davidlallen
Apr 25, 2011, 09:34 AM
Hey all. It's been a while. I had an extended stay in hospital but I'm ok now. :)

Welcome back. I am pretty sure we have lost Ahriman to Civ 5. He posts there but has not visited here in a few months.

Folket
Apr 25, 2011, 01:46 PM
The same exploit would not work with five reverend mothers. You probably want to be lvl 4 before you try this so with more travel time getting xp is slower and it is unlikely that you will survive with all of them.

Perhaps make the AI more likely to have spies protecting cities? That could help against annex city. Does the AI use defensive spies?

We should probably end the discussion here as we just have different opinions.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 25, 2011, 08:06 PM
Well, the issue of balance is speculative, which means play testing will confirm or deny any suspicions there. I also don't think the right way to balance such things is by hamstringing the player with artificial rules, thus I'd agree with david's suggestion for any rebalancing (if even needed) unless the rule change really threw multiple things out of whack (which again, I have no reason from my play testing to suggest it will).

Another thought I've had follows a separate line of logic. In the real world, given that nation A were to use something like an 'annex city' mission on another country (nation B), Nation B's alert level for attacks from Nation A would go through the roof for a time making further espionage attempts much more difficult. A less severe espionage mission would have a correspondingly lower effect on such alert levels.

In game terms, we could give espionage missions a value representing an average increase in alert level (to Nation A's espionage efforts only) given a successful mission, or to a smaller extent from failed missions as well. This increased alert level would translate into progressively higher rates of spy detection and defense (again, only to Nation A's espionage), which would wear off over time as things remain quiet.

This seems to me at first glance a system that mirrors reality relatively well, is intuitive to the player, translates well to the ai(no recoding needed there), and would curb the ability to repeatedly use 'super' espionage abilities, while having a minor effect on more mundane espionage efforts, particularly if used repeatedly against a target. I think it may be something to consider.

And remember, I'm not considering changing things for the sake of change here, I'm sincerely looking for areas where the game can be improved. This is a process that is rarely accomplished without at least minor rebalancing needed. If you approach change with too much fear of its balance or other implications, before even trying it, you'll never undertake the experimentation that can really lead to an improved game. DuneWars and many other great mods would never even have come into existence if someone wasn't willing to shake up game rules and organization a bit.

I'm not planning on doing anything however that severely throws off the existing balance the mod has worked so hard for, so give me a little trust here ;). I'm aware of how fine a line it is.

Natasha
Apr 26, 2011, 06:31 AM
Finally, and linking to the previous point, travel times are only low if you have nearby cities, and if you're attacking the same area repeatedly. Since most factions only have a small handful of missions, and they last a while, after hitting one city, you usually will be wanting to go somewhere else that may or may not be anywhere close to the area you just hit.
Agreeing with the above.
In game terms, we could give espionage missions a value representing an average increase in alert level (to Nation A's espionage efforts only) given a successful mission, or to a smaller extent from failed missions as well. This increased alert level would translate into progressively higher rates of spy detection and defense (again, only to Nation A's espionage), which would wear off over time as things remain quiet.
That sounds like a great way of balancing espionage missions. Although, if you've invested enough in EP to pull of an Annex, chances are that the opponent/ai needs to at least forgo espionage against all other factions to provide defense against you (if they can mange at all).

Also on the subject of spies: The Ordos spy unit currently appears unable to gain any promotions other than Stealth I-III (and Sabotage which they start with).
Checking the 'pedia I noticed that indeed all other spy promotions are linked to different factions.
IMO they should have access to at least the Counterespionage mission (Security promotions iirc). In fact, Counterespionage seems like something all factions should be able to get to.

In addition, to hopefully help with the Inquisitor issue mentioned above, I've attached a save. The Inquisitor is present in my city of Tartrus Chasm which has both SH (my state religion) and CHOAM. Selecting the unit shows a button which presumably is the one we're looking for, but it has no tooltip and clicking it does nothing.


288467

davidlallen
Apr 26, 2011, 08:47 AM
Another thought I've had follows a separate line of logic. In the real world, given that nation A were to use something like an 'annex city' mission on another country (nation B), Nation B's alert level for attacks from Nation A would go through the roof for a time making further espionage attempts much more difficult. A less severe espionage mission would have a correspondingly lower effect on such alert levels.

This effect is already present. I have forgotten some of the details and I don't have the mod source code handy anymore. When an "annex city" mission succeeds against an AI, there is a significant chance that the AI will immediately declare war. The chance increases at each success. Also, I believe that either succeeding or failing at the annex will give a -1 penalty to diplomatic relationship against the attacker.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 26, 2011, 09:18 AM
In addition, to hopefully help with the Inquisitor issue mentioned above, I've attached a save. The Inquisitor is present in my city of Tartrus Chasm which has both SH (my state religion) and CHOAM. Selecting the unit shows a button which presumably is the one we're looking for, but it has no tooltip and clicking it does nothing.

Thanks! that'll help a lot :thumbsup:

Also on the subject of spies: The Ordos spy unit currently appears unable to gain any promotions other than Stealth I-III (and Sabotage which they start with).
Checking the 'pedia I noticed that indeed all other spy promotions are linked to different factions.

I haven't played Ordos yet, so I don't know how this plays out or if it's intentional or not. I know the guys put a lot of work into making each faction different on the espionage front, so I don't want to jump too quickly to a conclusion there. Perhaps Deliverator can comment more on if it's intended or not.

IMO they should have access to at least the Counterespionage mission (Security promotions iirc). In fact, Counterespionage seems like something all factions should be able to get to.

Anyone else have any opinions on this idea?

This effect is already present. I have forgotten some of the details and I don't have the mod source code handy anymore. When an "annex city" mission succeeds against an AI, there is a significant chance that the AI will immediately declare war. The chance increases at each success. Also, I believe that either succeeding or failing at the annex will give a -1 penalty to diplomatic relationship against the attacker.

I'm glad to hear that this is there, I noticed a similar thing with the 'cause incident' mission as Corinno were after using it, they had a 'you manipulated us!' -1 modifier against me. It's no deterrence if you have no interest in maintaining good relations with a faction though, and could exist side by side with what I proposed. I'll have to actually try an annex heavy strategy (I've got a save game I can try it from already I think) to see if any new systems are even necessary though, right now it's just a proposal for if it's too imbalanced at present.

Chris

p.s. I've got a lot of RL stuff today, but I'm still going to try to have a 1.9.2 beta for this evening or tomorrow.

BvBPL
Apr 26, 2011, 10:13 AM
Anyone else have any opinions on this idea?


I agree. All factions should probably have access to counterespionage if only as a balance to how powerful espionage can get. That said, it is probably fair for some factions to be better at counterespionage than others.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 26, 2011, 08:04 PM
That said, it is probably fair for some factions to be better at counterespionage than others.

An interesting idea to think about.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 26, 2011, 08:38 PM
Alright, as promised, here's the 1.9.2 patch with the latest changes:

major gameplay changes
- fractional xp
- changes to spy return(see this post) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10424629&postcount=117)

minor fixes
- polar region trade fix (thanks Prylak)
- fremen workers keep sandrider promo (as opposed to sandworker) after 'stillsuits' tech
- no 'stillsuit' goody if unit already has the better sandrider promo
(applies to any goody promo result that's normally blocked by an existing promo)
- larger maps default to 9 players to avoid duplicate civs
- fixed wrong xml xp values for buzzard thopters and worms (caused incorrect xp with victory over these units)

Important
This is intended as a patch to 1.9.1 (Download here (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ovktueja83qoczo) is you don't have it) and includes the previous 1.9.1.2 patch for convinience. So if you have the latest patch installed already, you can install this right over it, no need to uninstall anything. If you are installing from scratch, install the 1.9.1 full download linked above, then this patch (no need to install 1.9.1.2 first)

Also, this should be technically save game compatible with 1.9.1.2, however any experience any units have upon loading the first time will be divided by 10 due to the new system viewing what was for instance 10xp before now as 1.0xp. All experience gained after that initial load will be added as intended though.

>>>>>>>>>> DuneWars 1.9.2 patch download <<<<<<<<<< (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?cpz825xj7jtcu9b)

In addition to bug reports, I'm particularly interested in reactions to the new spy return mechanism. This should be considered the first in a line of incremental beta patch releases leading up to a full 2.0 release in the coming months.

p.s. I know I'm changing the version number convention since 1.9.1 was a full download, but I felt the four digit version numbers where confusing people more than this could.

clearbeard
Apr 27, 2011, 09:29 AM
Ooh, shiny! I'll start a new game tonight (if real life lets me).

On the ongoing general spy discussion topic:

If all factions can get counterespionage promos, perhaps the Atreides should be allowed to build spies after all, but ONLY allow them to have counterespionage promos, and ONLY perform counterespionage missions?

Natasha
Apr 27, 2011, 02:22 PM
If all factions can get counterespionage promos, perhaps the Atreides should be allowed to build spies after all, but ONLY allow them to have counterespionage promos, and ONLY perform counterespionage missions?
Hmmm.. Atreides building spies would really detract from their identity IMO.
Also, if they get the Security promotions, should they get Stealth as well? If not, you'd still have a unit that can't do anything with their xp after 3 promotions..

That may be a general problem with spy units; their promotion paths aren't deep/varied enough to do anything useful after a couple of promotions. (Although, barring the Ordos issue, I have never seen that become a problem in any of my games. Just thought it'd be worth taking into consideration.)

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 27, 2011, 04:16 PM
The Atreides already get de facto counterespionage from the duke's bench and intelligence posts, so I'd think we could still leave them without spies if we gave everyone access to counterespionage. We can adjust the cost and success rate of counterespionage missions and give certain civs free promos or just access to promos that increase success, and lower costs, or extend the effects perhaps.

Chris

davidlallen
Apr 27, 2011, 06:06 PM
Alright, as promised, here's the 1.9.2 patch with the latest changes:.

Thanks for doing this. The idea of a three digit release is that the user should install only the main release 1.9, and then this file. That is, there may be some files which have an old version in 1.9, a new version in 1.9.1, and no version in 1.9.2 (the file is not in the 1.9.2 zip). If there are any such files, then installing just 1.9 and 1.9.2 will not work. Please avoid that. The release instruction thread shows how you can make a release which contains all the changed files over 1.9; I am afraid that your partial release may leave things just as confused as they are today.

Please feel free to link your release post from the three most often watched threads:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=338329
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=335213
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362479

If you can make one release (maybe 1.9.3) which includes all the changed files so only 1.9 plus this are needed, then I will be happy to update the introductory posts on those threads to point to that release. This will be good practice for the next step, an official full 2.0 release.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 27, 2011, 06:47 PM
That's how I would have liked to do it, but 1.9.1 messes it up as a full release (NOT a patch to 1.9) which makes 1.9 obsolete (short of finding every change between 1.9 and 1.9.1), making
so only 1.9 plus this are needed
impossible. We have to treat 1.9.1 as the main download, followed by any patches.

I thought for a while about whether to do a full release or patch and how to name it and every approach had drawbacks. Relatively few files have been changed since 1.9.1, so I decided against doing a full release for the sake of those who were already patched to 1.9.1.2. I'm also foreseeing several incremental patches leading up to a 2.0 full release rather than trying to do it all at once, largely for the sake of getting feedback as we go. So patches definitely seem the way to go, where each increments (1.9.3, 1.9.4, ...), includes the previous post 1.9.1 patches (so only the most recent is needed) and installs on top of either a clean 1.9.1 install or any patched version of it (keeps it simple).

Nobody should be downloading 1.9 period at this point (if they want it patched at any rate).

If we list 1.9.1 in the welcome thread as the main download, then the newest patch below it, the numbers won't matter too much, people will understand to install whatever it says is the latest main download, followed by what it says is the latest patch. There's absolutely no reason for 1.9 to still be in there.

And I'll put links in those threads at some point this evening (edit: done). Thanks David.

Chris

davidlallen
Apr 27, 2011, 09:42 PM
I don't think we have the same understanding of the contents of 1.9.1. If a player has no dune wars installed, and they install 1.9.1 only, they cannot play the game. There are many files in the 1.9 release which are not in the 1.9.1 patch. So your instructions to uninstall 1.9 and then install 1.9.1 do not seem correct.

Following the instructions in the release howto thread, you can make a zipfile containing all the files which are newer than 1.9. This is the best way to make a minor release.

KHM
Apr 28, 2011, 01:30 AM
I don't think we have the same understanding of the contents of 1.9.1. If a player has no dune wars installed, and they install 1.9.1 only, they cannot play the game. There are many files in the 1.9 release which are not in the 1.9.1 patch. So your instructions to uninstall 1.9 and then install 1.9.1 do not seem correct.

I'm sorry, but you're NOT right. I started playing DW only a few weeks ago, and the ONLY things I downloaded were 1.9.1b (having 122 MB) and 1.9.1.2 (having 5 MB) and the music pack). Despite your post, I AM able to play the game :D .

Thus, chris seems to be right with his understanding of the EXISTING version system, whether intended or not.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 28, 2011, 06:02 AM
Ahh, now I see the source of the confusion. Yeah, as KHM said (and Deliverator can verify), the 1.9.1 linked in the 'release note' link on the welcome page is a full release independent of and replacing 1.9. We probably need to update the download file in the civfanatics database to reflect this as well. There's no more reason to install 1.9 at this point than 1.8 or 1.7, only 1.9.1 - yes the numbering isn't ideal, but it is what it is until we have another full release at 2.0.

From the 1.9.1 release page (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10096964&postcount=36) (emphasis mine):
Note: 1.9.1 is the latest full version of Dune Wars - you need to install it first before installing 1.9.1.2.

If you get a minute, download it and do a fresh install and see for yourself.

Chris

davidlallen
Apr 28, 2011, 08:40 AM
I don't have BTS installed on my current system. I guess I had forgotten that 1.9.1 is an exception to the rule of the previous 20 releases where a "three number" release does not include all the files.

I have updated the first post in the welcome thread and the main forum thread to show that 1.9.1 is the latest main release and 1.9.2 is the latest patch.

I would still prefer if subsequent versions used 1.9 as a base; it does not make much sense from a numbering perspective if you have to install 1.9.1 and then 1.9.2. But since I am not doing any work on this, it is possible that my preference does not matter.

davidlallen
Apr 28, 2011, 11:18 AM
Also, there are several benefits to putting the new releases into the civfanatics download database. The download count is public, and people searching the download database will find the newest release. What I have done before is to host the file at mediafire (as you have done) but add an entry into the civfanatics database. Then the welcome thread and forum thread would contain a link to the database entry, instead of directly linking to mediafire. If you are interested in doing that, please post here and I will update the first post on those two threads.

Praylak
Apr 29, 2011, 12:45 AM
Downloading and starting a new game. Nice work Chris. I'll second Natasha's statement above about Atriedies and the spy issue.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 29, 2011, 06:17 AM
Your preference does matter to me David :), but we've got to choose the lesser of two evils at this point until a 2.0 release. It's either use an unfortunately inconsistent three digit number, or a long and confusing 4 digit number. I shrugged my shoulders and went with the three. I'm going to look at how to update the civfanatics download this weekend.

Downloading and starting a new game. Nice work Chris. I'll second Natasha's statement above about Atriedies and the spy issue.

Thanks ;), and that's my take on the Atreidies and spies as well for now. Looking forward to any feedback.

Chris

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 29, 2011, 08:42 PM
Well, the current Ordos spy situation definitely doesn't feel right. They get tons of free xp, but can only spend it on evasion 1, 2, and 3... then what? Following the recent discussion, we can give them access to at least the initial counterespionage promo (don't think saboteurs should get really good at it though, so only the first?).

Maybe introduce some new tags that let us improve their primary ability, sabotaging things :king:. I'm considering introducing promo tags that can increase the success rate or decrease the cost of specific espionage missions. Thus, a really good saboteur could really cause problems for an enemy and be alot of fun - while a novice saboteur will need to earn his stripes the hard way. I want to take away the free xp (it's not really a fun or engaging mechanic I think, nor does ti scale to game speed), and give instead very occasional free evasion promos. So, they'll still get better over time(though less predictably), involve less micro of leveling each to the same thing ;), while the real promotions that actually enhance their saboteur skills actually require them to get out and earn it (by, naturally, destroying things :D).

The proposed tags could have applications for other espionage promos as well of course.

Chris

Natasha
Apr 30, 2011, 07:03 AM
Well, the current Ordos spy situation definitely doesn't feel right. They get tons of free xp
The Ordos spy gets free XP? We figured it was gained from defending against enemy spy units.. that explains a lot!

I can see why you would limit access to Counterespionage to 1 lvl only, that sounds fair.
Do they actually need free xp/promotions?
I like the idea of fiddling with success chance/effect of certain missions (for any spy unit, not just Ordos). I'm thinking these should be relatively small effects though, lest spies become too powerful.

davidlallen
Apr 30, 2011, 09:00 AM
Ordos spies getting free XP is one of their major benefits. However, only spending on evasion does not sound right. The discussions about spies and civ-specific missions can be found on these threads (which I have not re-read recently).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=409665
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=376783
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=342301

It "sounds like" the civ-specific missions for Ordos have been accidentally blocked.

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 30, 2011, 09:04 AM
Yea, there's python code that gives them 1xp each turn until they reach 100xp.

Do they actually need free xp/promotions?

I think the intention was perhaps that they should be better at sneaking around enemy territory, so the free xp lets them pick up the evasion promos, but it might also be left over from before the espionage overhaul Deliverator and Ahriman did. I still want them to get the evasion promos easy, but not through xp, while giving them something else to spend xp on.

I like the idea of fiddling with success chance/effect of certain missions (for any spy unit, not just Ordos). I'm thinking these should be relatively small effects though, lest spies become too powerful.

Agreed. The idea, as it stands in my head right now, is to make some of the missions a little costlier/more difficult by default, but with promotions it gets back to where it is now, or for well promoted units a little cheaper/easier. I'm not sure how it'll really play out though, or when I'll have time to really get into it. There are easier, more pressing matters I'll be getting to first.

Chris

ChrisAdams3997
Apr 30, 2011, 09:10 AM
The discussions about spies and civ-specific missions can be found on these threads (which I have not re-read recently).

Yep, I've only had time to go over some of the discussions. Trying to get around to all of them.

It "sounds like" the civ-specific missions for Ordos have been accidentally blocked.

One major difference here is that most of the civ-specific promos have three tiers, the ordos does not. Most of those tiered promos increase durations or amplitude of missions, which doesn't apply to either of the ordos missions, you either destroy an improvement or you don't for example. That's where the ideas above came from, something for extra tiers for their promo(s). Any other ideas there are welcome.

Natasha
Apr 30, 2011, 10:54 AM
One major difference here is that most of the civ-specific promos have three tiers, the ordos does not. Most of those tiered promos increase durations or amplitude of missions, which doesn't apply to either of the ordos missions, you either destroy an improvement or you don't for example. That's where the ideas above came from, something for extra tiers for their promo(s). Any other ideas there are welcome.
This suggests to me making sabotage scalable as well.
At tier 1, you could decrease the unit's movement (or make it only able to move once every x turns).
At tier 2, also decrease its strength by x%
At tier 3, destroys the unit.
It seems that the lesser effects could be implemented by passing a 'Sabotaged I' or 'Sabotaged II' promotion to the targeted unit. This might even make it possible to increase their duration and effect.

If you want to be nasty, tier 3 sabotage could, instead of outright destruction, set strength and movement to 0, making the controlling player actively having to destroy it themselves. "It's useless. Scrap it. Damn these blasted saboteurs!" This would make the effect even more transparent as well.

clearbeard
Apr 30, 2011, 09:20 PM
Well, I'm a good bit into a new game with Chris' new patch. I must say I love the XP changes, and my earlier concerns seem groundless. Usually the only time I see the 0.5 minimum XP is where it's deserved, like putting the final shot into a quad that withdrew from combat. I also like that it's still 1.0 XP for withdrawing (thanks for listening!) and I LOVE that you get XP when your foe withdraws. So far all the fractional gain rates feel right, but it's still early to know if those little extra bits will add up to be too much in the long run. Playing Atreides, so I don't expect I'll have much to weigh in on the spy debate from this game.

Some minor bugs I've noticed, to consider as polish for the next release:

Water Cache reduces damage from air strikes and nukes. Is this intentional? As I recall from my Fremen game from an earlier patch (and checking the 'pedia), their unique replacement Deathstills only save water on growth.

Atreides' Beesting interceptors only get +50% against other hornets, while the normal version gets +75%. Is this intentional? Seems odd, especially noting the upgrade Locust also has +50%.

The 'pedia entry for CHOAM says the founder gets a free emissary, but I didn't.

Not a bug per se, but should Harkonnen slaves be changed into regular workers when captured/freed? On the subject, I'm finding captured slaves to be immensely useful as pre-builders. It's clearly an exploit, but if you stop a slave the turn before he finishes, and finish with a regular worker, you get the benefit of the faster work rate, plus keep the slave.

That's it so far, thanks for all your great efforts! I'm glad to see this mod getting some fresh attention. More notes to come, as I note them.

clearbeard
Apr 30, 2011, 09:41 PM
Yep, I've only had time to go over some of the discussions. Trying to get around to all of them.



One major difference here is that most of the civ-specific promos have three tiers, the ordos does not. Most of those tiered promos increase durations or amplitude of missions, which doesn't apply to either of the ordos missions, you either destroy an improvement or you don't for example. That's where the ideas above came from, something for extra tiers for their promo(s). Any other ideas there are welcome.

One idea for a higher tier Ordos mission could be "salt the earth" where instead of just destroying an improvement, the tile gets salt added to it. "Dirty bomb" could be a third level, which adds fallout instead.

ChrisAdams3997
May 01, 2011, 08:11 AM
Really appreciate the feedback guys.

This suggests to me making sabotage scalable as well.
At tier 1, you could decrease the unit's movement (or make it only able to move once every x turns).
At tier 2, also decrease its strength by x%
At tier 3, destroys the unit.
It seems that the lesser effects could be implemented by passing a 'Sabotaged I' or 'Sabotaged II' promotion to the targeted unit. This might even make it possible to increase their duration and effect.

These are good ideas. When I get a day or two to really think about this, I'll put together all the ideas proposed and come up with a system. Until then, more ideas are always welcome.

If you want to be nasty, tier 3 sabotage could, instead of outright destruction, set strength and movement to 0, making the controlling player actively having to destroy it themselves. "It's useless. Scrap it. Damn these blasted saboteurs!" This would make the effect even more transparent as well.

It would be nasty:D, but I'd never hear the end of the "what happened to my unit :mad:" threads, and I'd have to actually teach the AI to delete them. Which, while not impossible, teaching the AI anything new is a pain roughly on par with teaching kindegarders algebra (Ok, maybe an exaggeration in this case, but still)

Water Cache reduces damage from air strikes and nukes. Is this intentional? As I recall from my Fremen game from an earlier patch (and checking the 'pedia), their unique replacement Deathstills only save water on growth.

Definitely doesn't sound intentional. I could see a moderate argument that a well contained and protected water cache would be helpful for surviving air raids/nukes, but not a -50%, and it's not intuitive at all. Conversely, guard stations and force shields have no protection afforded. I'm going to put a small effect on the guard station, and a larger one on the force shield that adds up to this same -50% (so the late game air power balance isn't screwed up).

Atreides' Beesting interceptors only get +50% against other hornets, while the normal version gets +75%. Is this intentional? Seems odd, especially noting the upgrade Locust also has +50%.

I'd have to agree with you again. The current setup means both have an effective strength of 10.5 against hornets, exactly the same, which leaves the beesting slightly more damaging in air strikes, but no better at actual aerial combat. The problem I see with dropping the wasp to 50% is that puts it at effectively 9 versus a firefly bomber's 8 strength, a very narrow margin. Which brings us back to the wonky vanilla civ situation where bombers shoot down intercepting fighters a lot of the time. So raising the beesting's bonus seems the right action.

There also needs to be enough difference in effective aerial strength between the beesting and the locust to justify upgrading. The locust has an effective strength of 9*1.5 = 13.5. Using 75% for the beesting puts us at 7*1.75=12.25. That's a little close I think. Using 60% instead we get 7*1.6 = 11.2, compared to the wasp's 6*1.75 = 10.5. So we've got a moderate but not overwhelming advantage for the beesting, hopefully without damaging any balance.

The 'pedia entry for CHOAM says the founder gets a free emissary, but I didn't.

I founded CHOAM yesterday and got the free emissary, and it's properly setup in the xml for them too. You either missed it;), or it's a bug that needs to be looked at. But that xml field and it's behavior should be unchanged from BTS I'm guessing.

Not a bug per se, but should Harkonnen slaves be changed into regular workers when captured/freed?

I like this idea and it should be possible through python without too much trouble. I found it awefully odd to be capturing and using old harkonnen slaves as the atreides in a game a couple weeks ago.

I'm finding captured slaves to be immensely useful as pre-builders. It's clearly an exploit, but if you stop a slave the turn before he finishes, and finish with a regular worker, you get the benefit of the faster work rate, plus keep the slave.

This is a hair more complicated. There are at present no unit level variables or functions I can think of that would be useful here. What I can do is create a new unit variable in the DLL that acts as a counter each turn the unit is building something. Passing that to python, I can kill a slave after he's worked x number of turns for instance, where x is modified by the game speed, and with a little uncertainty added in on just how many turns any slave could work before dying so as to not be gamed to much. It's low priority however.

One idea for a higher tier Ordos mission could be "salt the earth" where instead of just destroying an improvement, the tile gets salt added to it. "Dirty bomb" could be a third level, which adds fallout instead.

I was thinking something similar. The real bummer of sabotaging improvements is, you know that after spending hard earned EP's and risking you're unit, the AI will just have the improvement built again in five turns anyway. Adding an improvement that prevents them from rebuilding immediately would help that. But instead of salt, I'm thinking about the wrecked infrastructure left behind that has to be cleared first. Any ideas on a good name (or if 'wreckage' would work), plus it would need artwork. If anyone knows of existing art on the database or from some mod that might fit that, it'd be useful.

I could alternatively, or alongside the above idea, add a plot level variable that cuts workrate in half on the plot and expires after some time. It wouldn't be 'visible' except in tooltips, saving the need for artwork, and would really be easier to code I think.

Chris

Natasha
May 01, 2011, 01:34 PM
It would be nasty:D, but I'd never hear the end of the "what happened to my unit :mad:" threads, and I'd have to actually teach the AI to delete them.If you go that way, a promotion on the sabotaged unit, coupled with the message that "A {unit} in {city} has been tampered with by a Saboteur!" should make it clear what happened. But I figured teaching the AI to handle them would indeed be quite difficult.
I'm finding captured slaves to be immensely useful as pre-builders. It's clearly an exploit, but if you stop a slave the turn before he finishes, and finish with a regular worker, you get the benefit of the faster work rate, plus keep the slave.This is a hair more complicated. There are at present no unit level variables or functions I can think of that would be useful here. What I can do is create a new unit variable in the DLL that acts as a counter each turn the unit is building something. Passing that to python, I can kill a slave after he's worked x number of turns for instance, where x is modified by the game speed, and with a little uncertainty added in on just how many turns any slave could work before dying so as to not be gamed to much. It's low priority however.
Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. While it is technically exploitable, it sounds like a lot of micromanagement for a relatively small bonus. Especially if you run Serfdom, with the 50% work rate chances are the Slave will be done in a single turn anyway.
I was thinking something similar. The real bummer of sabotaging improvements is, you know that after spending hard earned EP's and risking you're unit, the AI will just have the improvement built again in five turns anyway. Adding an improvement that prevents them from rebuilding immediately would help that. But instead of salt, I'm thinking about the wrecked infrastructure left behind that has to be cleared first. Any ideas on a good name (or if 'wreckage' would work), plus it would need artwork. If anyone knows of existing art on the database or from some mod that might fit that, it'd be useful.

I could alternatively, or alongside the above idea, add a plot level variable that cuts workrate in half on the plot and expires after some time. It wouldn't be 'visible' except in tooltips, saving the need for artwork, and would really be easier to code I think.
I had forgotten about sabotaged improvements. Replacing it with a wrecked version sounds good. I would much prefer it to be visible on the map, so some kind of artwork for that would be sweet. As a name, 'Wreckage' would work, or maybe 'Ruined Improvement'. (I guess we need to stay generic, as giving each improvement a specific 'wrecked' version would not be feasible.)

clearbeard
May 01, 2011, 04:24 PM
Really appreciate the feedback guys.

...Which brings us back to the wonky vanilla civ situation where bombers shoot down intercepting fighters a lot of the time....



I always thought this was intentional and reasonable, from vanilla Civ, and don't mind seeing it kept here too. The B-17 wasn't called the "flying fortress" for nothing, after all. I'm not entirely sure how to tweak the numbers to achieve it, but on a successful interception having something like

25% - bomber shoots down fighter (almost always damaged in the process)
25% - both damaged
50% - fighter shoots down bomber (damaged half the time in the process)

feels about right to me. That's for equal tech level intercepts, of course (wasp on firefly; locust on dragonfly).



I founded CHOAM yesterday and got the free emissary, and it's properly setup in the xml for them too. You either missed it;), or it's a bug that needs to be looked at. But that xml field and it's behavior should be unchanged from BTS I'm guessing.



Should have thought to save the autosave from the turn before founding. If it happens again I'll be sure to do that. Gotta love bugs that happen sometimes but not others!


I like this idea and it should be possible through python without too much trouble. I found it awefully odd to be capturing and using old harkonnen slaves as the atreides in a game a couple weeks ago.


Isn't there an XML tag that defines what a unit becomes on capture? The one that turns settlers into workers?


This is a hair more complicated. There are at present no unit level variables or functions I can think of that would be useful here. What I can do is create a new unit variable in the DLL that acts as a counter each turn the unit is building something. Passing that to python, I can kill a slave after he's worked x number of turns for instance, where x is modified by the game speed, and with a little uncertainty added in on just how many turns any slave could work before dying so as to not be gamed to much. It's low priority however.


Definitely low priority. The AI's slaves seem to disappear as intended, and it requires an unattractive amount of micromanagement to abuse it as a player. As an alternate, slaves could be changed to the Fall from Heaven model, where they are slower than normal workers, but can be burned like a great engineer for a small hammer boost. Not sure how much work adding that functionality would be, but I'm pretty sure it's just a couple XML changes.


I was thinking something similar. The real bummer of sabotaging improvements is, you know that after spending hard earned EP's and risking you're unit, the AI will just have the improvement built again in five turns anyway. Adding an improvement that prevents them from rebuilding immediately would help that. But instead of salt, I'm thinking about the wrecked infrastructure left behind that has to be cleared first. Any ideas on a good name (or if 'wreckage' would work), plus it would need artwork. If anyone knows of existing art on the database or from some mod that might fit that, it'd be useful.

I could alternatively, or alongside the above idea, add a plot level variable that cuts workrate in half on the plot and expires after some time. It wouldn't be 'visible' except in tooltips, saving the need for artwork, and would really be easier to code I think.

Chris

I thought of salt and fallout because they already exist in the game, and have large opportunity costs (and relatively high tech costs) to remove. Wreckage would work just as well. You could use the city ruin graphic if nothing else is out there. Your other idea sounds good too, and if it's easier to code than an add feature function, even better.

ChrisAdams3997
May 01, 2011, 06:36 PM
I had forgotten about sabotaged improvements. Replacing it with a wrecked version sounds good. I would much prefer it to be visible on the map, so some kind of artwork for that would be sweet. As a name, 'Wreckage' would work, or maybe 'Ruined Improvement'. (I guess we need to stay generic, as giving each improvement a specific 'wrecked' version would not be feasible.)

:thumbsup: I think I'll go that route, keeping 'wreckage' unless something better comes along, it seems to fit to me.

I always thought this was intentional and reasonable, from vanilla Civ, and don't mind seeing it kept here too. The B-17 wasn't called the "flying fortress" for nothing, after all

Once in a while is all right, but I recall seeing it a lot more than made sense in vanilla (like, bombers shooting down fighters more than half of the time). Might just be a case of reconstructive memory, as it's been a while. At any rate, since it seems to be alright now, the minor tweak like I'm trying should give good results. It's should remain possible but fairly rare. Since the fighters are 'attacking' the incoming bombers, it seems odd the entire fighter wing would be shot down, seeing as they have the initiative and can pull away from the fight if losing (looking from a realism point of view). The bomber's lack this advantage.

Isn't there an XML tag that defines what a unit becomes on capture? The one that turns settlers into workers?

Good call, lot easier than what I was going to try to do. Already fixed in my working copy.

but can be burned like a great engineer for a small hammer boost

That is an easy xml add like you guessed, and I'd already planned to do the same thing. Sometimes you get a bunch of slaves and there's no improvements to really build at the time, need something to make them useful in such situations and this seems intuitive. (done)

I thought of salt and fallout because they already exist in the game, and have large opportunity costs (and relatively high tech costs) to remove. Wreckage would work just as well. You could use the city ruin graphic if nothing else is out there. Your other idea sounds good too, and if it's easier to code than an add feature function, even better.

Yep, same idea, just different 'obstacles'. The problem with salt in my mind is it doesn't really represent what the saboteur is doing. He's not going to hang around after blowing up a bunch of stuff to salt anything, that's all I'm sayin' ;). The city ruin is the easiest art to use, since it's already by default there, but doesn't really fit that well and could be confused as a... wait for it... real city ruin. It might do in a pinch though or at least for testing. Still need something better, but I'm not sure where to look. I'm hoping someone who's more familiar with the available graphics from the database or mods will have an idea, as I could spend days looking through it all.

A dirty bomb in the latter game would be cool though, maybe even affect more than one tile. More bang for your buck :D.

Chris

clearbeard
May 01, 2011, 07:12 PM
New topic, maybe a bug, maybe not. Improvements seem to have nationalities now (eg Atreides Ice Extractor). Maybe they always did I just never noticed. Problem is, captured improvements, while still giving the proper yields to the city, do not seem to give resources. Save attached, note the ice south of Keke has a Harkonnen extractor. That should then be polar ice #9, but I only have 8. I've only noticed it with polar ice so far. There was another unit my border expansion captured from the Ixians I already pillaged and rebuilt.

ChrisAdams3997
May 01, 2011, 07:15 PM
Deliverator added in the nationality bit in either 1.9 or 1.9.1, but it doesn't affect your ability to work it or receive resources, only there for flavor as far as I am aware. I'll take a look at the save and see what's going on (with any luck).

Edit: Problem Solved...

You'll kick yourself for this one -- you're exporting one to House Ecaz.
9 - 1 = 8 :hammer2:

clearbeard
May 01, 2011, 07:37 PM
Deliverator added in the nationality bit in either 1.9 or 1.9.1, but it doesn't affect your ability to work it or receive resources, only there for flavor as far as I am aware. I'll take a look at the save and see what's going on (with any luck).

Edit: Problem Solved...

You'll kick yourself for this one -- you're exporting one to House Ecaz.
9 - 1 = 8 :hammer2:

lol, I just noticed that, and was coming back to delete my post. You're too quick!

davidlallen
May 01, 2011, 08:00 PM
but can be burned like a great engineer for a small hammer boost

That is an easy xml add like you guessed, and I'd already planned to do the same thing. Sometimes you get a bunch of slaves and there's no improvements to really build at the time, need something to make them useful in such situations and this seems intuitive. (done)

Careful. Will the AI use it? I don't think so. There are lots of great play ideas which are (a big pain / impossible / beyond my skills) to teach the AI. Any abililty the AI cannot use, further widens the skill gap between players and AI.

clearbeard
May 01, 2011, 08:25 PM
Re:2
Thats how I thought it worked, but it turns out my city in the polar region is not connected to my trade network. I have researched Dune topography, but it still remains unconnected. I don't see how to connect it?


Okay, I thought this issue was fixed with the last patch, that connected polar trade routes. It seems in addition to that problem, polar cities still do not benefit from polar water shippers. Perhaps this is intended? Another save attached. Note Al Gharb and Asmara Rock do not have the "+6 water from corporations" while my non-polar cities (like Arrakeen) do.

ChrisAdams3997
May 01, 2011, 08:48 PM
Careful. Will the AI use it? I don't think so. There are lots of great play ideas which are (a big pain / impossible / beyond my skills) to teach the AI. Any abililty the AI cannot use, further widens the skill gap between players and AI.

Good catch, and I know. I'll quote myself:

teaching the AI anything new is a pain roughly on par with teaching kindegarders algebra

Now... I can just about guarantee that as of now the answer is no. The worker unit AI code I'm sure has no consideration for the HurryProduction tags. However, as far as teaching AI goes (which usually is pretty involved), this one might just be easy.

The hurry production will be fairly small to begin with to where it gives a human something to do with extra slaves, but given any improvements to build, that's still a good move. So even without any AI code to tell the AI to think about hurrying production with them, it's not really hurting it too much. But, I can add a check for the hurry tags (they would just use iBaseHurry), then, if there is no work to be done given the existing worker code, send them to a nearby city and have them press the hurry button. It wouldn't need to be rocket science since it's a small effect. We could even tell it to prioritize cities building wonders without much trouble.

But I wouldn't worry too much over it till I can look at that. It's more of a psychological change than a gameplay changer, so you don't feel like you have nothing to use them on in those certain instances. If it becomes the primary thing to use slaves for then I've balanced it wrong.

ChrisAdams3997
May 01, 2011, 09:07 PM
Okay, I thought this issue was fixed with the last patch, that connected polar trade routes. It seems in addition to that problem, polar cities still do not benefit from polar water shippers. Perhaps this is intended? Another save attached. Note Al Gharb and Asmara Rock do not have the "+6 water from corporations" while my non-polar cities (like Arrakeen) do.

Interestingly, on the turn the save starts, neither of the cities in question have the "+6 water from corporations", while cities back on the 'mainland' do, just as you said. But after going to the next turn, both of the cities had the bonus water kick in. Had they just been built that turn? If so, it might have needed to go through some function at the end or beginning of a turn before the 'corporation' bonus is applied.

Just to elaborate a bit more, there's nothing different in how this works and any of the other commerce for resource 'corporation' buildings, including the palaces, guild research facility, etc., so there's no reason for the terrain or location to affect it. As long as the requisite resources reach the city via the trade network, it should be good to go.

Chris

clearbeard
May 02, 2011, 06:50 AM
Interestingly, on the turn the save starts, neither of the cities in question have the "+6 water from corporations", while cities back on the 'mainland' do, just as you said. But after going to the next turn, both of the cities had the bonus water kick in. Had they just been built that turn? If so, it might have needed to go through some function at the end or beginning of a turn before the 'corporation' bonus is applied.

Just to elaborate a bit more, there's nothing different in how this works and any of the other commerce for resource 'corporation' buildings, including the palaces, guild research facility, etc., so there's no reason for the terrain or location to affect it. As long as the requisite resources reach the city via the trade network, it should be good to go.

Chris

It wasn't the previous turn, though they were the most recent cities to build it (3 turn prior, I think). I took a look at some autosaves and found something interesting. The water shipper updated properly when I researched my next tech (ablative shields). Seems it was only coincidence I noticed it when my polar cities and only my polar cities built shippers, and another coincidence the save I uploaded was just before gaining a tech. The observed sequence was:
10382 - city 1 builds shipper, no water
10383 - city 2 builds shipper, no water
10386 - tech researched, both cities get water
I played through those turns 3 times and got the same result each time. I'll keep an eye out as the game progresses and more new cities build shippers, to see if the behavior repeats.

Another unrelated question: what does the "culture control" from outposts do, exactly? I assumed it prevented enemy culture from encroaching, but that doesn't seem to be the case after all...

Natasha
May 02, 2011, 09:14 AM
IThe observed sequence was:
10382 - city 1 builds shipper, no water
10383 - city 2 builds shipper, no water
10386 - tech researched, both cities get water
I played through those turns 3 times and got the same result each time. I'll keep an eye out as the game progresses and more new cities build shippers, to see if the behavior repeats.A similar thing happens with Spice. The number of spice resources controlled doesn't always seem to update straight away. Not sure if it's related to research though..
Another unrelated question: what does the "culture control" from outposts do, exactly? I assumed it prevented enemy culture from encroaching, but that doesn't seem to be the case after all...I have been wondering that too.

clearbeard
May 02, 2011, 09:37 AM
Noticed another little one: imperial priests have a national unit limit of 1, where all the other religions are 3. I suppose it might be intentional, reflecting a difficulty in renewing fealty to the imperium once it's supplanted by a different faith?

And is the University of Arrakis supposed to be a world wonder, rather than a national wonder? It seems odd that it's world, while the guild exchange is national.

Praylak
May 02, 2011, 11:38 AM
10382 - city 1 builds shipper, no water
10383 - city 2 builds shipper, no water
10386 - tech researched, both cities get water
I played through those turns 3 times and got the same result each time. I'll keep an eye out as the game progresses and more new cities build shippers, to see if the behavior repeats.

In regards to your saved game, it might be interesting to note that your one mainland city had a polar shipper built before any polar region city had one built. Though it shouldn't matter as the resource is connected to the city in question and is being consumed by polar cities. Strange....

Another possibly related issue, I seen the polar terrain type listed in both techs Dune Topography and Water Transportation, is there a reason for this? I'm probably shooting at the dark here but its curious. I'll take a second look at that...

ChrisAdams3997
May 02, 2011, 01:36 PM
A similar thing happens with Spice. The number of spice resources controlled doesn't always seem to update straight away. Not sure if it's related to research though..

That I can answer, almost by accident... Late last year I tried out a little project to mod into my RevDCM base a more complicated resource model, where the number of resources and how long you worked them, and so on, actually mattered. I scrapped it because I didn't like the way it affected gameplay in the end, but in the process I can across this issue.

The resources available was actually a floating number instead of integer that often went up slightly every turn. In the city screen it showed up correctly every turn. But, the tooltip when hovering over the resource on the map seemed to update only sporadically. I finally isolated it to updating when you researched a new tech, or, of all things, when you uncovered a previously unknown plot... You usually won't notice this with the current resource system since they only change every once in a while anyway, but it was very obvious in my experimental system.

Took forever, but I finally traced it to a certain dirty bit (a binary internal variable that's used to tell the interface when to update certain things basically) that shouldn't have been connected logically to updating the number of resources at all :rolleyes:. I put in a line of code setting it to dirty at the beginning of every turn and it always showed the right numbers after that.

Now... what these dirty bits actually do is hidden in the .exe, not the dll, so I have no idea what else is tied to it, so the solution I used there might have performance implications, it might not. I also don't know if it's involved with the corporation thing. On the one hand, it's the only one of these bits (there's about 8 or so by my recollection, which is a little rusty) that's tripped when researching a new tech, which means it could be the culprit. On the other hand, the resources show up fine in the city screen (where the corporation information is lacking) without it being tripped, they only lag on the world map tool tips.

At any rate, it's actually a minor issue, and it might be (if this is the culprit) just a display issue where the resources are hooking up immediately, just the tooltip is behind the times. To test this, watch the actual water accumulated in one of those cities with a new polar water shipper before it shows up in the tool tip and see if the extra water is added anyway.

ChrisAdams3997
May 02, 2011, 01:38 PM
Noticed another little one: imperial priests have a national unit limit of 1, where all the other religions are 3. I suppose it might be intentional, reflecting a difficulty in renewing fealty to the imperium once it's supplanted by a different faith?

I think this is very intentional. Imperial has a very high natural spread rate, it goes everywhere in the early game. This should be to balance that.

And is the University of Arrakis supposed to be a world wonder, rather than a national wonder? It seems odd that it's world, while the guild exchange is national.

Short of a balance reason to change this, I'm assuming it's intentional

Deliverator
May 02, 2011, 04:03 PM
Short of a balance reason to change this, I'm assuming it's intentional

Long discussion here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=406726) on the University of Arrakis and other balance issues. I think we should make it a National Wonder, perhaps rename it House Academy (but that might be confusing with the Academy from Great Scientists).

There's lots of other tweaks in that thread proposed by 100Bears and Ahriman that we should probably look at applying. Wouldn't want all that debate to go to waste!

ChrisAdams3997
May 02, 2011, 05:15 PM
Whoa :faint:, that's gonna take a little while to digest, hadn't looked at that thread yet.

clearbeard
May 02, 2011, 07:13 PM
At any rate, it's actually a minor issue, and it might be (if this is the culprit) just a display issue where the resources are hooking up immediately, just the tooltip is behind the times. To test this, watch the actual water accumulated in one of those cities with a new polar water shipper before it shows up in the tool tip and see if the extra water is added anyway.

I agree it's a minor issue, now that I know they'll update eventually. It's definitely not giving the water before the tech "activates" it though, very clear with the growth bar of the city. But a few turns without isn't a big deal, unless the fix is easy (which it sounds like it's not, or at least might add other unknown behavior, from your description).

ChrisAdams3997
May 02, 2011, 09:00 PM
yeah, I'm thinkin' leave it alone

ChrisAdams3997
May 02, 2011, 09:07 PM
I think we should make it a National Wonder, perhaps rename it House Academy (but that might be confusing with the Academy from Great Scientists).

I'm going to do this I think. And I think House Academy will work just fine. I've adopted a few of the suggestions in the thread as well, along with a few things from this thread and my own observations:

Current Changes
- fixed slig contract help
- Air/Nuke Defense moved from Water Cache to Guard Station(10%)/Force Shield(40%)
- Tweak to Beesting Interceptor's Wasp UnitCombat Bonus (50%->60%)
- slaves turned to workers on capture
- slaves given weak hurry production ability
- filmbook archive gives 1 free scientist, 4 research
- Order of Mentats cost reduced (850 to 600)
- Guild Research Facility gives 2 research per spice
- Chamber of Visions gives 2 espionage per spice
- Academy(from great scientist) weakened to 35% science
- Oppression gives bonus to mine upgrades as well

Planned/Possible Changes
- Change University of Arrakis to national wonder (should it stay 100%?, awefully powerful)
- Still haven't looked at the Zeal Promos
- Possibly teach slave AI to use hurry production
- Check Inquisitors are working properly

If it's suggested in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=406726), but not on this list, you can assume I disagreed with it for one reason or another :king:, but it's all still up for discussion.

I'm not touching the espionage until I have a clear idea of where it needs to head, but that's also something I'd like to add before the next patch (in a few weeks maybe).

Lord Katana
May 03, 2011, 07:46 AM
First off... first post here in DW... And :goodjob: great mod! :goodjob:

Second... looks good, the above.... those buildings are my preferred way to play DW, but they are way OP... so the nerf looks good... still grumbling about it... but it's good :D

Can't wait!

clearbeard
May 03, 2011, 09:14 AM
- Possibly teach slave AI to use hurry production
- Check Inquisitors are working properly



If slaves can get whatever unitAI lets great engineers do their thing, that should, I think, let them be used. Not sure the AI will use them optimally, but not sure much the AI does is optimal.

I'm pretty sure inquisitors do not work. The button is there, but it doesn't have a tooltip, and doesn't do anything when you press it. I've just built my first ever to get rid of those evil thinking machines in a newly captured Ecaz city. Quite disappointing that it doesn't seem to work. I might just have to world build it out, for now. :)

clearbeard
May 03, 2011, 03:57 PM
I remember it being discussed a while ago (this thread, back at post 91 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10165218&postcount=91)), but it seems interceptors (locusts anyway, don't have any of the others right now to check but I don't imagine they're different) still cannot perform intercepts while loaded in a suspensor carrier. Deliverator suggested a fix, not sure if it didn't make it into the patch or if it didn't actually fix the problem.

tesb
May 03, 2011, 10:51 PM
i hope you do not forget to fix the fVisibilityPriority for the house shield and the normal shields, i don't like doing this manually myself for every patch (have not tried the most recent yet).

an other item:
i always found it a bit odd that ornithopters could conquer cities, in fact in the early game you can do no wrong by simply building ornithopters to destroy enemy troops and conquering cities (add bombers later to reduce city defense) and building some guardsmen in every city for protection. i think ornithopters should not be able to conquer cities because:
1. it does not make much sense for basically flying unit to conquer a city, i.e. you need boots on the ground (perhaps only infantry should be allowed to conquer cities?)
2. it makes them too strong. they are very fast and do not need carryalls or suspensors to be transported over desert.

just compare them to regular infantry or other mechanized forces like tanks, they much are faster, nearly equally as hard hitting and are not constricted by terrain. imho they would still be very good fast response troops to clear out your or enemy territory.

Natasha
May 04, 2011, 04:06 AM
i always found it a bit odd that ornithopters could conquer cities, in fact in the early game you can do no wrong by simply building ornithopters to destroy enemy troops and conquering cities (add bombers later to reduce city defense) and building some guardsmen in every city for protection. i think ornithopters should not be able to conquer cities because:
1. it does not make much sense for basically flying unit to conquer a city, i.e. you need boots on the ground (perhaps only infantry should be allowed to conquer cities?)
2. it makes them too strong. they are very fast and do not need carryalls or suspensors to be transported over desert.

just compare them to regular infantry or other mechanized forces like tanks, they much are faster, nearly equally as hard hitting and are not constricted by terrain. imho they would still be very good fast response troops to clear out your or enemy territory.
I think vehicles are meant to be the fast response units. Also, nerfing thopters would have a huge impact on balance for Atreides. Also remember that unlike melee units, the heavier thopters require crystal which isn't always available.

clearbeard
May 04, 2011, 06:08 AM
I think vehicles are meant to be the fast response units. Also, nerfing thopters would have a huge impact on balance for Atreides. Also remember that unlike melee units, the heavier thopters require crystal which isn't always available.

It wouldn't necessarily nerf the Atreides much. Their 'thopters would still be the primary hitters, clearing out city defenders. It would just require a guardsman along in a scout 'thopter to actually capture the empty city. Not a bad change IMO.

Natasha
May 04, 2011, 06:50 AM
It wouldn't necessarily nerf the Atreides much. Their 'thopters would still be the primary hitters, clearing out city defenders. It would just require a guardsman along in a scout 'thopter to actually capture the empty city. Not a bad change IMO.
I suppose so. Still, thopters actually capturing doesn't bother me much.. *shrug*

ChrisAdams3997
May 04, 2011, 02:22 PM
I remember it being discussed a while ago (this thread, back at post 91), but it seems interceptors (locusts anyway, don't have any of the others right now to check but I don't imagine they're different) still cannot perform intercepts while loaded in a suspensor carrier. Deliverator suggested a fix, not sure if it didn't make it into the patch or if it didn't actually fix the problem.

Looks like it didn't make it into the 1.9.1.2 patch, I'm guessing this post fell between 1.9.1.2 and Delivator's, uh, administrative leave :). I've just deleted it, so 'should' be fixed for the next patch

i hope you do not forget to fix the fVisibilityPriority for the house shield and the normal shields, i don't like doing this manually myself for every patch

Ah, remember, I've just recently stepped into this role ;), I'd actually assumed (from having seen discussion of this in a much earlier thread) it had been fixed until I noticed one not showing up just a couple of days ago. now set to 10,000.0 for the next patch - they should show up :).

in fact in the early game you can do no wrong by simply building ornithopters to destroy enemy troops and conquering cities

I've always found them lacking compared to melee units at attacking cities, so I personally use them in just a support role. Are they really that effective against well defended cities? The AI also tends to keep a good number of rocket troopers around that keeps me from entertaining such a notion as a purely thopter attack force (unless you're grossly ahead in tech, which is hardly a unit balance issue)

Still, thopters actually capturing doesn't bother me much.

It doesn't bother me extraordinarily either. I do absolutely agree it would make more sense for them to not be able to capture cities. The reason I'm on the fence about it is for the sake of the AI (and gameplay).

As is, lonely cities in the desert and outskirts are vulnerable potentially to that lone AI thopter unit, forces you to watch your back a bit more, which I like. They've definitely caught me off guard like this before. If the AI has to coordinate carryalls/transports to attack such places, well, lets just say I'm not as worried about it. It can happen, but... less likely. So the realism argument I'm personally able to let slide.

Now, if the consensus is to not allow them to take cities, I'm not really set one way or the other, and it's a simple change.

tesb
May 04, 2011, 04:50 PM
I've always found them lacking compared to melee units at attacking cities, so I personally use them in just a support role. Are they really that effective against well defended cities? The AI also tends to keep a good number of rocket troopers around that keeps me from entertaining such a notion as a purely thopter attack force (unless you're grossly ahead in tech, which is hardly a unit balance issue)
melee is better at taking cities, but thopters are just very versatile troops due to their speed and no restriction to terrain and their withdrawal chance. i often only go for the guardsmen line for defense and thopters for everything else in early game, in the mid game i mix in bombers to help out my thopters and in the late game i switch to las troopers only. i could get melee troops for city taking but that would mean i have to spread my research more.
afaik they could also be changed to give them a negative attack modifier when attacking cities or introduce bigger nastier sandstorms that can destroy or heavily damage thopters (and perhaps suspensor vehicles) :)

ChrisAdams3997
May 04, 2011, 06:10 PM
I actually like the fact the there are different strategies that can work. If we nerfed everything except units specifically designated to be 'city attackers' in their ability to attack cities, we'd have a more one dimensional game.

Now, that's separate from the issue of wether they should be able to take cities or not. Taking that ability away still wouldn't nerf their ability to attack cities, you'd just have to have some more combined arms for actually occupying the city. Which isn't a bad compromise.

ChrisAdams3997
May 04, 2011, 06:15 PM
Another Update on what's included/planned:

Changes/Fixes
- fixed slig contract help
- Air/Nuke Defense moved from Water Cache to Guard Station(10%)/Force Shield(40%)
- Tweak to Beesting Interceptor's Wasp UnitCombat Bonus (50%->60%)
- slaves turned to workers on capture
- slaves given weak hurry production ability
- filmbook archive gives 1 free scientist, 4 research
- Order of Mentats cost reduced (850 to 600)
- Guild Research Facility gives 2 research per spice
- Chamber of Visions gives 2 espionage per spice
- Academy(from great scientist) weakened to 35% science
- Oppression gives bonus to mine upgrades as well
- Great Spy building gives only 75% bonus to EP's(from 100%), +2 experience to spies built in the city
- Carrier Loaded Wasp interception fix (not yet tested)
- fVisiblePriority fix for House Shield Generator and Force Shield buildings (should always show up now)

Planned/Possible Changes
- Change University of Arrakis to national wonder (should it stay 100%?, awefully powerful)
- Still haven't looked at the Zeal Promos
- Possibly teach slave AI to use hurry production
- Check Inquisitors are working properly
- NeverObsoletes unit tag from FfH2

That last one is so you can still build for instance razzia raiders even if you don't have 10 naib's chosens for instance, or still build a naib's chosen after researching the tech for Fedaykin. It'll be applied to select units only that are affected by these kinds of issues/ certain niche units

tesb
May 04, 2011, 06:25 PM
i am just making suggestions, the main issue i had was that thopters are too versatile compared to any other troops, they are especially good in taking the polar regions very early in the game

ChrisAdams3997
May 05, 2011, 06:15 AM
i am just making suggestions, the main issue i had was that thopters are too versatile compared to any other troops, they are especially good in taking the polar regions very early in the game

And I'm just evaluating them to see if they should go in :). I really do appreciate the feedback, always. I don't tend towards early military build ups very often, so I've never tried such a strategy. I am going to try out taking away their ability to take cities for the next patch and see what the reaction is.

Do you think it would help balance them if we perhaps took a similar approach as with quads for instance and increase the hammer cost, making it harder in the early game to spam thopters, or would a small negative bonus for city strength help more (or some other approach)?

Chris

tesb
May 05, 2011, 08:34 AM
well not being able to capture cities would mean the players has at least to bring one scout thopter for transport to capture the polar regions early on . on the other hand it might confuse the ai too much. perhaps giving them just a city attack penalty is better, honestly i don't know.

in ffh recon units all got such a penalty because they were quite fast, compared to melee troops.

Natasha
May 05, 2011, 09:31 AM
I am going to try out taking away their ability to take cities for the next patch and see what the reaction is.

Do you think it would help balance them if we perhaps took a similar approach as with quads for instance and increase the hammer cost, making it harder in the early game to spam thopters, or would a small negative bonus for city strength help more (or some other approach)?
I think making thopters unable to capture would be enough, If you give them a city penalty they become more like vehicles, and I think it's good to maintain differences between unit types. Of course thopters can still move on desert but in the early game, when you're still developing your starting island this is not of too much concern.

Jester Fool
May 05, 2011, 01:23 PM
making thopters unable to capture would be enough I played Dune Wars when thopters/suspensor craft could not capture cities. Game balance was terrible. The AI still placed troops in all its cities but the human player could leave cities undefended (after barbs gone) behind their own border with the AI opponents. The AI just could not effectively plan strikes against the human - always attacked bordering cities. Allowing the capture of cities, forces the human to garrison all their cities instead of exploiting the AI's weakness.

ChrisAdams3997
May 05, 2011, 03:33 PM
Hey Jester, that's my biggest concern with making this change, as I mentioned earlier. Since then, Dune Wars has been merged with the latest BetterAI code, so hopefully it's less of an issue. So like I said, I'm going to try it and see how it plays out. I'm not entirely that optimistic, but we'll see.

ChrisAdams3997
May 05, 2011, 03:43 PM
Atredies Ducal Guard/Order of Agamemnon

These were originally meant to not cost any xp, but I tend to agree with David's concerns there (I'll find the post, where ever it was if anyone is interested). The problem at present however is that they just aren't that great compared to other potential promotions, especially in the late game.

For any who don't know, these are max player instance limited promotions for the Atredies meant to encourage the idea of them using a small number of highly skilled units. At present, each adds 1 to the units combat strength. That means giving ducal guard to a bladesman brings him from 5 base strength to 6, or a 20% increase. Plus any combat bonuses apply to the new 6 base strength. So, not too shaby.

Now, apply that same ducal guard promo to a kindhal soldier, 16->17. Big whoop, right? A combat promo adding 10% strength gives more. What I've done is combined that +1 strength with a % bonus as well so that it acts like having an extra combat promo and then, adds the extra base strength on top of it.

I'm also about to look at the promo help for them to make it say how many more are available, just like when building a unit with a max instances (saudakar for instance), not just the total number that can be built.

Jester Fool
May 05, 2011, 04:46 PM
@ Chris : I would also suggest a minor tweaking of Ginaz Training as well. Right now you need combat II on a unit to be able to take GT I on the next promotion. As a result, I have never taken it since CR3 (+75% city attack) is better than +40% strength although the +20% bonus to experience is nice. I almost never use melee units for defense (the exception being fishspeakers of course) so you would almost always benefit more from just sticking to CR3 and taking a different offworld resource.

If you could take GT I as the first promotion, I could see where the long term benefit would outweigh the initial lower usefulness. I would suggest GT I have +15% strength instead of +20% so CR2 (+45% city attack) compared to GT II (+35% strength/+40% experience gained) would actually be a good tradeoff.

ChrisAdams3997
May 05, 2011, 06:06 PM
How about we give ginaz training some city attack bonus as well. That way, it's an interesting decision to go for the easier CR 1-2-3 promos, or build up to the Ginaz line, taking the combats first before getting to the really good stuff.

I agree that taking the trade contract should give you access to something really worth the trade off. I find ginaz training right now a fun direction to go, but not really an optimal one. This would help.

I also think that the idea of ginaz training is that just any green bladesman shouldn't be able to get it, you need some experience first, so I don't like having no prereqs.

Another idea would be an FfH'esque minLevel req, so you don't necessarily need to take combats, any unit of enough experience could get ginaz training. This is my favorite option of what I've proposed, but more work for me, so, we'll see :lol:

If I go this route, it would work slightly different. Using Ginaz 1 as an example, I might set the minLevel to 4 (you need three promotions), and keep the prereq of combat2. This means that if you have combat2, you don't need to be level 4 to get it. However taking any other promotion line, level 4 is necessary. Or, in other words, it'd act as an 'or' prereq instead of an 'and'. A few other promos tied to the combat line could benefit from this as well, medic comes to mind.

Deliverator
May 06, 2011, 02:14 AM
I remember it being discussed a while ago (this thread, back at post 91 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10165218&postcount=91)), but it seems interceptors (locusts anyway, don't have any of the others right now to check but I don't imagine they're different) still cannot perform intercepts while loaded in a suspensor carrier.

I fixed this locally before my disappearance. Not sure if it was C++ change or an XML fix. I'll try and dig it out by comparing 1.9.1.2 with my local code.

Edit: Just saw that Chris says he's fix this now.

Deliverator
May 06, 2011, 02:16 AM
Delivator's, uh, administrative leave .

:lol:

Deliverator
May 06, 2011, 02:21 AM
I actually like the fact the there are different strategies that can work. If we nerfed everything except units specifically designated to be 'city attackers' in their ability to attack cities, we'd have a more one dimensional game.

Now, that's separate from the issue of wether they should be able to take cities or not. Taking that ability away still wouldn't nerf their ability to attack cities, you'd just have to have some more combined arms for actually occupying the city. Which isn't a bad compromise.

If you think about the Dune fiction, thopters are uses for raiding settlements but generally conquest requires additional ground forces. So, theme-wise having thopters not able to capture cities but only attack them would work IMO. However, any change would be conditional on how the AI copes as Jester Fool says.

Deliverator
May 06, 2011, 02:38 AM
One idea left over from my work log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9932723&postcount=2) that I quite like is making sandstorms more of a threat by making them say 2x2 tiles or a random 4-5 tiles out of a 3x3 square. Also, they should be a more severe threat to Thopter units IMO.

Also, assuming that Arrakis is the most commonly used mapscript, the movement of sandstorms should be in a spiral pattern around the polar centre. At the moment, they move horizontally because when the Python code was written by David we only had the Archipelago map.

It would be good to have Coriolis storms that more accurately match the fiction.

davidlallen
May 06, 2011, 12:59 PM
Also, assuming that Arrakis is the most commonly used mapscript, the movement of sandstorms should be in a spiral pattern around the polar centre. At the moment, they move horizontally because when the Python code was written by David we only had the Archipelago map.

Good idea, not that hard to do. This thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=336692) gives a little navigational assistance for the python. Don't try to make them move in actual circles, a diamond is good enough. In the sandstorm code today, a given storm moves one plot horizontally, and has a chance of moving -1,0,+1 plot vertically. Change this to first check which quadrant of the map it is in. If in the northeast quadrant for example, then it should move +1 horizontally and +1 vertically, with a chance of moving +1/0 or 0/-1 instead. This means that a particular storm, viewed over many turns, will move in a somewhat circular path around the map but it may spiral in or out. The code for removing storms that touch each other or cross mesa terrain would not need to be changed.

OTOH, making one storm cover a larger area would be very hard.

clearbeard
May 06, 2011, 01:35 PM
OTOH, making one storm cover a larger area would be very hard.

Perhaps make them rather more common then? I'm not sure I've ever actually seen a sandstorm in the game, certainly not one that affected me in any significant way.

davidlallen
May 06, 2011, 01:38 PM
I'm not sure I've ever actually seen a sandstorm in the game.

Really? That is surprising. They do not cross mesa so you do not see them over "land" often. To test, you could turn on cheat mode ("chipotle") and then reveal the map. At any time, there should be a number of them out there.

ChrisAdams3997
May 06, 2011, 04:09 PM
lol, I've never 'seen' one either, but it's because the graphics for it don't show up for what ever reason on my older computer with only an on-board gpu (or at least this has always been my assumption). They do destroy improvements and kill workers on occasion though, so I know they're there ;). It's rather odd as It's the only thing I can't see, and effects are turned on.

This is of course a problem for me with adding anything to the code controlling them. I won't have much of an idea of what they are doing :D.

clearbeard
May 06, 2011, 04:13 PM
Really? That is surprising. They do not cross mesa so you do not see them over "land" often. To test, you could turn on cheat mode ("chipotle") and then reveal the map. At any time, there should be a number of them out there.

Not a one in sight, in either my most recent save, or one from a hundred turns or so prior. A couple of spice blows, plenty of sandworms, but no storms. Could be coincidence, but I certainly have never noticed them having an impact on my game. I've played exclusively on the Arrakis script, generally the default settings. I also haven't really been looking for them, so I'll try and keep a better eye out in future games, particularly in the early exploration stages.

ChrisAdams3997
May 06, 2011, 05:12 PM
As noted in the hints, and in a way by David in his post, they move from west to east, and they break up as they hit land. So, in the Arrakis map script, they really effect you mostly on the western side of the map. Like I said, something about the way they are graphically represented prevents it from showing up on my computer (or my graphics settings, not quite sure here), but every once in a while, they'll destroy spice harvesters, workers in the desert, or an improvement or two on the western side of a land mass.

p.s. David or Deliverator, any idea what's different about how it's graphically shown that could explain this issue. As a referece, spice blows, which I believe are primarily particle driven (right?) show just fine with effects on. Why wouldn't the sand storms? I'm relatively sure I'm not the only one this happens to.

Jester Fool
May 06, 2011, 05:18 PM
Really? That is surprising. They do not cross mesa so you do not see them over "land" often.I remember in earlier versions (1.7/1.8) sandstorms were fairly common. In 1.9, I have never seen one. My guess is something changed in the code/map setup/terrain system(typing) which prevents sandstorms from spawning in the new version.

Lord Katana
May 06, 2011, 06:30 PM
Atredies Ducal Guard/Order of Agamemnon

These were originally meant to not cost any xp, but I tend to agree with David's concerns there (I'll find the post, where ever it was if anyone is interested). The problem at present however is that they just aren't that great compared to other potential promotions, especially in the late game.

For any who don't know, these are max player instance limited promotions for the Atredies meant to encourage the idea of them using a small number of highly skilled units. At present, each adds 1 to the units combat strength. That means giving ducal guard to a bladesman brings him from 5 base strength to 6, or a 20% increase. Plus any combat bonuses apply to the new 6 base strength. So, not too shaby.

Now, apply that same ducal guard promo to a kindhal soldier, 16->17. Big whoop, right? A combat promo adding 10% strength gives more. What I've done is combined that +1 strength with a % bonus as well so that it acts like having an extra combat promo and then, adds the extra base strength on top of it.

I'm also about to look at the promo help for them to make it say how many more are available, just like when building a unit with a max instances (saudakar for instance), not just the total number that can be built.

I also play Master Of Mana a lot, It's a modmod to FfH2. Sephi coded something there that might be useful here. He has promotions that are depended on the tier of the unit. A tier 2 unit gets +2 str, a tier 3 +3 str, and a tier 4 +4 str... It could also be useful for the Ducal Guard Promotions... That way it remains about the same percentage bonus for all units. And the unit tiers in DW are fairly distinct, so it might be easy to implement... Numbers ofcourse can vary, on a bladesman, +1 str would be enough to qualify as a good promo... Another benifit of this would be that it might be worthwhile to upgrade your units and still have a reasonable benefit from the promo itself.

Natasha
May 06, 2011, 07:01 PM
I also play Master Of Mana a lot, It's a modmod to FfH2. Sephi coded something there that might be useful here. He has promotions that are depended on the tier of the unit. A tier 2 unit gets +2 str, a tier 3 +3 str, and a tier 4 +4 str... It could also be useful for the Ducal Guard Promotions... That way it remains about the same percentage bonus for all units. And the unit tiers in DW are fairly distinct, so it might be easy to implement... Numbers ofcourse can vary, on a bladesman, +1 str would be enough to qualify as a good promo... Another benifit of this would be that it might be worthwhile to upgrade your units and still have a reasonable benefit from the promo itself.
That would certainly work if you guys can code it this way. Otherwise I think the +str/+% combination would be the way to go, though it may require more tweaking to get the numbers right.

On Ginaz Training:
I like these promotions a lot, I usually go for them already, if only for flavor reasons! Haven't really seen how they work with fractional xp (should be stronger), but if they're still on the weak side it would be okay to simply bring them up a notch.
I really like the idea of an elite promotion that you have to invest in (in this case, one of the landing stages).
Along that line I think it's the Weirding Way that needs attention even more, though.
I almost never get around to picking that up, as Ginaz is clearly superior and by the time you're over that the unit is lvl 5 and I've (usually) already won the game.

On sandstorms:
I have rarely noticed them to affect anything. Occasionally they will 'eat' a Harvester but that's about it. Anything to make them have more of an impact ( and make Weather Control worth at least considering) would be good, IMO.

Also, random idea #1: a change to Spotter Control. As it is now, I find it on the weakish side as a city will rarely be able to work over 3 desert tiles (maybe that's just my play style though). And then to have its full effect those tiles have to be superior to the 'land' tiles available.
How about an effect that gives your Spice Harvesters a 50% chance to 'survive' a worm attack? The worm would still disappear after the attempt.

ChrisAdams3997
May 06, 2011, 07:04 PM
I remember in earlier versions (1.7/1.8) sandstorms were fairly common. In 1.9, I have never seen one. My guess is something changed in the code/map setup/terrain system(typing) which prevents sandstorms from spawning in the new version.

I know they are spawning, as I have mentioned I can't see them, but they do destroy stuff on occasion :). Wether they are spawning in proper numbers or not... I'll have to review the code.

I also play Master Of Mana a lot, It's a modmod to FfH2. Sephi coded something there that might be useful here. He has promotions that are depended on the tier of the unit. A tier 2 unit gets +2 str, a tier 3 +3 str, and a tier 4 +4 str... It could also be useful for the Ducal Guard Promotions... That way it remains about the same percentage bonus for all units. And the unit tiers in DW are fairly distinct, so it might be easy to implement... Numbers ofcourse can vary, on a bladesman, +1 str would be enough to qualify as a good promo... Another benifit of this would be that it might be worthwhile to upgrade your units and still have a reasonable benefit from the promo itself.

I'm familiar with Sephi's work ;), I'd considered doing some heavy duty FfH modding before moving into this project. The Tier tags are actually base FfH, though Sephi and others have undoubtable refined it. I know it's very heavily involved in his equipment code, and I think he might have a separate Weapon Tier tag, though following the various tag additions in FfH modmods would require a dedicated historian :D. At any rate, Sephi's isn't ready to release any new code, which I respect as he's got a lot of sweeping changes going on at present.

But even if the newest code was available, I'm not sure that this would really be what we need, as the tier tags are primarily for detirmining if a promo (or equipment promo) is valid for a unit, it doesn't change the value of the promo's bonus. Here that's primarily being controlled by when you research the tech prereq's. The main issue is just that it wasn't any better than any one of some of the standard promo's, so no real plus for the Atredies. I think the approach I've taken should make it worthwhile and make it scale better.

Along that line I think it's the Weirding Way that needs attention even more, though.

Agreed! I've already got some plans here, when I get time to get to it. At present, it's a moderately stronger version of the combat promo line that requires a lot of research, and if you take it, you lose access to any promotions that require the combat promos as prereq's. Also, by the time you research it, you have very few low level units who can easily get the promo. It's just not worth it.

So, here's the idea. It becomes a 3 tiered promo (instead of 2) that after researching the tech is gained automatically, but in a (potentially) semi-random fashion. Let me explain. A civ with the tech has a python function that runs a check on each unit each turn. If they don't have WW1, they have x% chance of gaining the promo per turn, modified by experience, game speed, etc. You can expect a fair number of melee/guardmen units to get WW1. WW2 is tougher, but units with more experience again are more likely to pick it up, with WW3 continuing this trend. While it could still be given by traditional experience(possibly, still up in the air), the primary way of attaining it would be the random training route.

The whole idea is that it isn't so much an opportunity cost against other promo's, but rather it adds to what your current units already have, without having to sacrifice a promo level for it. That said, they'd be rebalanced to add only lets say 5% combat each (and some melee combat bonus), being a freebie(kind of) and all for researching the tech, more or less. It's supposed to make strong units stronger. I'd also like to bring back the instructress (requires the tech and the old Bene Gesserit trade good, 'bond of sisterhood' was it?) to increase the chances of gaining the promos.

I'd also like to use this ideology for the thumper promo, where higher level sandrider units will pick it up, again, semi-randomly. It falls in that same category of a promo that sounds nice, but in practice is too situational to sacrifice a more useful promo for it.

ChrisAdams3997
May 06, 2011, 07:59 PM
Another idea I'd like to begin discussion on is the Kwasitasz Haderash (I'm sure that's misspelled, just roll with it). I don't like how it's so tied into the simplistic system of how many hammers you can pump out. It's too much of a given that you'll produce one as the Bene Gesserit. The initial thoughts I've had are going towards giving each breeding project a chance to fail, requiring you to try building it again. I'm not entirely sure about this, but at least it would give the feel that it's not a certainty, and, much like the bene gesserit in the books, you don't really know when you might actually achieve it, or if you will.

Any other ideas and thoughts on this are quite welcome.

Natasha
May 07, 2011, 05:20 AM
Agreed!Yay! :D
The whole idea is that it isn't so much an opportunity cost against other promo's, but rather it adds to what your current units already have, without having to sacrifice a promo level for it. That said, they'd be rebalanced to add only lets say 5% combat each (and some melee combat bonus), being a freebie(kind of) and all for researching the tech, more or less. It's supposed to make strong units stronger. I'd also like to bring back the instructress (requires the tech and the old Bene Gesserit trade good, 'bond of sisterhood' was it?) to increase the chances of gaining the promos.

I'd also like to use this ideology for the thumper promo, where higher level sandrider units will pick it up, again, semi-randomly. It falls in that same category of a promo that sounds nice, but in practice is too situational to sacrifice a more useful promo for it.Sounds interesting. Not sure how the Instructress would work, I never played DW while that unit was in, but it sounds cool.
As for the thumper promo, you're quite right there. I picked it exactly once in all the games I played and killed a worm just because I could. You could go the way of making it a 'free' promo like you mentioned, or it could perhaps be made more interesting in and of itself (or both...)
I read somewhere in these threads about an idea to give the thumper promo a function where you could actually plant a thumper to attract a worm. If that could be brought back it could possibly be used to:
- divert worms away from your spice fields
- ride the worm (Sayyadina graphic?), giving a fairly large combat advantage for a couple of turns (maybe with a % chance of losing the unit instead, and requiring Fremen Water Debt?)
Another idea I'd like to begin discussion on is the Kwasitasz Haderash (I'm sure that's misspelled, just roll with it). I don't like how it's so tied into the simplistic system of how many hammers you can pump out. It's too much of a given that you'll produce one as the Bene Gesserit. The initial thoughts I've had are going towards giving each breeding project a chance to fail, requiring you to try building it again. I'm not entirely sure about this, but at least it would give the feel that it's not a certainty, and, much like the bene gesserit in the books, you don't really know when you might actually achieve it, or if you will.
It's 'Kwisatz Haderach' ;)
If you go the route of making the projects failable, they could probably do with a stiff reduction in hammer cost and/or maybe some kind of of lesser reward. It's not a lot of fun to invest a lot of hammers and not getting anything in return
Another way of introducing uncertainty is to make the unit 'emergent' somehow: Dependent on how much you have invested in it (Breeding project 1-x completed), there is a % chance one of your melee units becomes the KH, gaining the Prescience promotion and aura effect as already in existence, but also retaining any previous promotions gained and base strength. Possible also tack on an increased XP from combat promo - Shortening of the Way indeed!

Kwis
May 07, 2011, 07:56 AM
Along those lines: what happens to failed Kwisatz Haderachs? Would they just die? Or might they have a chance of becoming twisted mentats? Or going rogue, possibly changing factions (also barbarians?), or going berserk? Assassinating, performing hurtful espionage missions.. only the amount of work needed seems overwhelming.

clearbeard
May 07, 2011, 12:01 PM
Another idea I'd like to begin discussion on is the Kwasitasz Haderash (I'm sure that's misspelled, just roll with it). I don't like how it's so tied into the simplistic system of how many hammers you can pump out. It's too much of a given that you'll produce one as the Bene Gesserit. The initial thoughts I've had are going towards giving each breeding project a chance to fail, requiring you to try building it again. I'm not entirely sure about this, but at least it would give the feel that it's not a certainty, and, much like the bene gesserit in the books, you don't really know when you might actually achieve it, or if you will.

Any other ideas and thoughts on this are quite welcome.

You could introduce some kind of KH counter, giving an X% chance of spontaneously generating a KH per turn. The Bene Gesserit breeding program could then be an inexpensive, repeatable project that increases this counter, or a more expensive project that adds to the counter every turn. My first preference is for the latter, so the breeding program is a more passive, behind the scenes activity. Resources can be committed to improving its efficiency, but not required to make any progress at all.

Example:
Palace provides +1 KH point/turn
Breeding Program 1 provides +1 KH point/turn
Breeding Program 2 provides +2 KH points/turn
Breeding Program 3 provides +4 KH points/turn
Breeding Program 4 provides +8 KH points/turn

Each turn:
Precursor spawn odds KH in 1000, requires Education tech
Aspirant spawn odds KH in 2000, requires Mental Discipline tech
Candidate spawn odds KH in 4000, requires Water of Life tech
Haderach spawn odds KH in 8000, requires Prescience tech

The KH counter would reset to zero when a Kwisatz spawns, and they must spawn in sequence.

Additionally, fixed bonuses for certain events might be added to the KH counter:

An acolyte successfully performs the political marriage action, +2 KH
Every truthsayer in play, +10 KH
Kwisatz unit gains a level, +10 KH (Kwisatz units would need a combat strength buff to make this viable)
A repeatable project (arranged marriage?) that adds KH points?

The numbers are just suggestions, and would obviously have to scale with game speed.

Anyway, that's my idea. From my total lack of programming experience it looks like something that should be moderately feasible to implement.

Natasha
May 07, 2011, 02:26 PM
Along those lines: what happens to failed Kwisatz Haderachs? Would they just die? Or might they have a chance of becoming twisted mentats? Or going rogue, possibly changing factions (also barbarians?), or going berserk? Assassinating, performing hurtful espionage missions.. only the amount of work needed seems overwhelming.
They'd most likely die. Remember that to fully realize his potential, Paul had to pass the trial of the Water of Life, and if he couldn't have, he'd have lethally poisoned himself.

Natasha
May 07, 2011, 02:32 PM
You could introduce some kind of KH counter, giving an X% chance of spontaneously generating a KH per turn. The Bene Gesserit breeding program could then be an inexpensive, repeatable project that increases this counter, or a more expensive project that adds to the counter every turn. My first preference is for the latter, so the breeding program is a more passive, behind the scenes activity. Resources can be committed to improving its efficiency, but not required to make any progress at all.

Example:
Palace provides +1 KH point/turn
Breeding Program 1 provides +1 KH point/turn
Breeding Program 2 provides +2 KH points/turn
Breeding Program 3 provides +4 KH points/turn
Breeding Program 4 provides +8 KH points/turn

Each turn:
Precursor spawn odds KH in 1000, requires Education tech
Aspirant spawn odds KH in 2000, requires Mental Discipline tech
Candidate spawn odds KH in 4000, requires Water of Life tech
Haderach spawn odds KH in 8000, requires Prescience tech

The KH counter would reset to zero when a Kwisatz spawns, and they must spawn in sequence.

Additionally, fixed bonuses for certain events might be added to the KH counter:

An acolyte successfully performs the political marriage action, +2 KH
Every truthsayer in play, +10 KH
Kwisatz unit gains a level, +10 KH (Kwisatz units would need a combat strength buff to make this viable)
A repeatable project (arranged marriage?) that adds KH points?This. Perhaps in combination with my suggestion of the KH unit replacing an existant unit. Because really, as awesome as the KH powers are, Paul was no rookie before that. He was fighting training meks at the highest settings and he'd already been taught a thing or two by Thufir, Duncan and Jessica.

Natasha
May 07, 2011, 02:48 PM
From Deliverator's to-do list:+ I hope espionage will get more thorough documentation and its own entry in the Dune Wars Concepts section.
I'm going to take a stab at this. It won't be finished tomorrow but I can start on something.

Would it be okay if I just made it plain text? I don't know how xml works or anything, but I imagine that creating a text would be the main body of work...

Kwis
May 08, 2011, 02:50 AM
Along those lines: what happens to failed Kwisatz Haderachs? Would they just die? Or might they have a chance of becoming twisted mentats? Or going rogue, possibly changing factions (also barbarians?), or going berserk? Assassinating, performing hurtful espionage missions.. only the amount of work needed seems overwhelming.

Edit: After thinking it over, I actually meant; creature such unique and sophisticated as KH may take many forms and has never proven to be controllable, as seen in the books:

I do remember a conversation between Paul and G.H.Mohiam:

"The drug's dangerous," she said, "but it gives insight. When a Truthsayer's gifted by the drug, she can look many places in her memory in her body's memory. We look down so many avenues of the past . . . but only feminine avenues." Her voice took on a note of sadness. "Yet, there's a place where no Truthsayer can see. We are repelled by it, terrorized. It is said a man will come one day and find in the gift of the drug his inward eye. He will look where we cannot into both feminine and masculine pasts."
"Your Kwisatz Haderach?"
"Yes, the one who can be many places at once: the Kwisatz Haderach. Many men have tried the drug . . . so many, but none has succeeded."
"They tried and failed, all of them?"
"Oh, no." She shook her head. "They tried and died."

But there was also a successful Tleilaxan Kwisatz Haderach! Or so Master Scytale, the Face-Dancer lied. He said:
"Because we once bred a kwisatz haderach of our own," Scytale said.
With a quick movement of her old head, the Reverend Mother looked up at him.
"You didn't tell us that!" she accused.
"You didn't ask," Scytale said.
"How did you overcome your kwisatz haderach?" Irulan asked.
"A creature who has spent his life creating one particular representation of
his selfdom will die rather than become the antithesis of that representation,"
Scytale said.
"I do not understand," Edric ventured.
"He killed himself," the Reverend Mother growled.

"What was the origin of your kwisatz haderach?" the Reverend Mother asked.
"We've dabbled in various pure essences," Scytale said. "Pure good and pure
evil. A pure villain who delights only in creating pain and terror can be quite
educational."
"The old Baron Harkonnen, our Emperor's grandfather, was he a Tleilaxu
creation?" Irulan asked.
"Not one of ours," Scytale said. "But then nature often produces creations
as deadly as ours. We merely produce them under conditions where we can study
them."About Mauad'Dib:
He was a creature who had developed
firmly into one pattern. He'd destroy himself before changing into the opposite
of that pattern. That had been the way with the Tleilaxu kwisatz haderach.
Have you considered creating Kwisatz haderach by Tleilaxu as well? Make it sort of competition? Their creation might be coming in many forms, be cheaper to create, but ultimately less powerful?

ChrisAdams3997
May 08, 2011, 06:07 AM
After some considerable thought, here's my current (and by no means final) line of thinking. The various aspirants would remain easy to create, just by way of the breeding projects. They are just 'experiments', stepping stones, along the way. They would still be separate units in and of themselves, just as they are now. They should be less powerful considerably than what they are, and I'm not entirely sure they should always have combat as their specialty, have a random pool for each with several different bonuses (like the mentats perhaps) that are possible.

Now, the Kwisatz Haderach himself... should not be so easy. Or even a given. I like where Natasha's idea was headed with this, but after creating the final breeding project, this shouldn't just be a random waiting game for the player after that. The basic concepts of design here is the player has to have continued control and desision making that effects when the Kwistatz Haderach is produced - but - not full control.

So, there's is to begin with, a miniscule chance the project actually creates a KH, which would be applied by promotion to an existing high experience melee unit. More than likely, nothing will happen :nya: - BUT - it does two things. For one, the KH may 'pop up' randomly with no further input after this. May take a long time. May take forever (e.i. not happen in the game span). To influence this, the player has to make a strategic choice to devote resources or not, possibly in the form of a process (like producing wealth), or a cheap rebuildable building. I'm leaning towards the process approach. I don't want it to be tied to how many hammers you can pump out of a city. I like the idea of Political Marriages having a (small) effect as well, though I don't want to force players to go that route every time.

Now, this process could add to a global counter like clearbeard suggested that over time brings the odds of the KH appearing higher, or it could just affect the odds on that turn while a city/cities are producing it. that's a matter of balance and feel largely that would have to be played with.

The AI would almost certainly be exempt from this and would just get a higher chance of him appearing to begin with after building the final breeding project.

Nothing is set in stone, and it'll be a few weeks at best before I consider tackling this (working on espionage right now), so keep the ideas and feedback coming.

Chris

p.s. sorry kwis, almost forgot your post there. failed and competing KH's is a bit out of the initial scope, at least for now, as the basic design is the first thing to consider. Maybe at a later date those things can be looked at. I also definitely appreciate the references from the books, it's been about eight years since I read all six books, I've only re-read dune itself once since then. I certainly didn't remember about the Tleilaxu KH.

ChrisAdams3997
May 08, 2011, 06:28 AM
I'm going to take a stab at this. It won't be finished tomorrow but I can start on something.

Would it be okay if I just made it plain text? I don't know how xml works or anything, but I imagine that creating a text would be the main body of work...

That would be great. If you write something up in plain text, I can figure out where to put it :). Though right now I'm overhauling some of the internal workings of the espionage system, and figuring out the rebalancing of who gets what missions, tiering the promo lines that aren't (like we'd discussed), so it probably needs to wait until we get it nailed down a bit.

Here's where we stand, with more work underway. Some of this stuff refers to stuff in the dll code that might not mean much to most people. To say the least, the original spy code, if you'll remember, didn't make allowances for spy promotions, that was added by modder's. A number of things were never really matched up, documented, or implemented properly and I'm trying to set that all in order.

An example of where the code doesn't match what you'd expect to happen (based on game text) is building espionage defense. You'd expect it to not only make missions against the city more expensive, but also make it more difficult for enemy spies to carry out missions against the city. The first part is true, but the original code doesn't actually look at the amount of spy defense buildings give. Instead, if any building in the city has any amount of spy defense (could be 5% or 100%, wouldn't matter), it treats it as if there were a friendly spy stationed there giving a flat 15% bonus to enemy spy detection in the city's plots - which wouldn't stack with an actual friendly spy there :sad:, still 15%. There were also cases of the spy promotions not actually doing what was advertised and/or missing proper game text showing the user they were working even where they were. Anyway, here's the list so far:

Espionage changes
- stealth promos act as a negative multiplier to chance of being detected (updated AI weight) instead of subtraction from detection chance
- stealth promos changed to 35%(I), 30%(II), and 25%(III) (meaning with all 3, a unit is 90% less likely to be caught than without)
- Buildings with Spy Defense actually contribute to spy detection based on their bonus%
- before, any building with spy defense was treated the same as having a spy stationed in the city with a flat 15% bonus to detection, regardless of spy defense bonus
- now uses a formula to detirmine spy detection bonus based on spy defense, stackable with stationed spy unit
- uses a diminishing returns function that prevents too many stacked bonuses from becoming overpowered
- counterespionage mission available to all without security promo, security 3 is gone, security 1 & 2 add to visibility and enemy spy interception, counterespionage bonus
- security promos still only available to same civs as before
- counterespionage no longer always 100% success rate (difficulty mod changed from -100% to 0%)
- spies get experience (fairly small amounts) when in enemy territory based on chance of being caught
- spies recieve fractional xp based on difficulty of mission
- fixed game text to show dexterity bonus to mission cost
- internal changes to the way dexterity and stealth operate (to match their original intent better)
- stealth makes getting caught in enemy territory less likely, and has a moderate impact on mission success (was quite overpowered in mission success before)
- dexterity gives bonus to mission cost without having to fortify as long (or not at all with dexterity 3), and now actually gives bonus to mission success

Natasha
May 08, 2011, 09:13 AM
- stealth promos changed to 35%(I), 30%(II), and 25%(III) (meaning with all 3, a unit is 90% less likely to be caught than without)
- spies get experience (fairly small amounts) when in enemy territory based on chance of being caught I assume the xp is calculated before the stealth promotions are factored in?

While you're working on espionage, will you be looking into the Annex crash issue? Happened again a couple of times during a multiplayer game, very annoying... :twitch:

ChrisAdams3997
May 08, 2011, 12:11 PM
I assume the xp is calculated before the stealth promotions are factored in

no, it is factored in on purpose. The stealth promos are quite powerful, but their drawback is that while your units are at less risk, they will also get less xp for that risk. This works on the same principle that the higher the risk you're taking attacking an enemy unit, the more xp you'll get. So, yes, a combat5 unit will get less xp for attacking the same enemy as a green unit, but... he's also got a 99% chance of surviving while the unpromoted unit has 56% (hypothetical numbers of course).

While you're working on espionage, will you be looking into the Annex crash issue? Happened again a couple of times during a multiplayer game, very annoying...

I'll poke my head around there and see what I can see.

Edit: think I might have found something. Here's the code, note the bold parts.

if (kMission.getBuyCityCostFactor() > 0)
{
if (NULL != pPlot)
{
CvCity* pCity = pPlot->getPlotCity();

if (NULL != pCity)
{
szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_ESPIONAGE_TARGET_CITY_BOUGHT", pCity->getNameKey()).GetCString();
acquireCity(pCity, false, true, true);
// davidlallen: city flip penalty start
GET_PLAYER(eTargetPlayer).AI_changeMemoryCount(get ID(), MEMORY_MANIPULATED_US, 1);
pCity->changeOccupationTimer(GC.getDefineINT("BASE_OCCUPATION_TURNS") + ((pCity->getPopulation() * GC.getDefineINT("OCCUPATION_TURNS_POPULATION_PERCENT")) / 100));
if ((!GET_TEAM(eTargetTeam).isHuman()) && (GET_TEAM(eTargetTeam).canDeclareWar(getTeam())))
{
int iRand = GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(10, "Manipulate declare war");
int iMem = GET_PLAYER(eTargetPlayer).AI_getMemoryCount(getID( ), MEMORY_MANIPULATED_US);
if ((-iMem) > iRand)
{
GET_TEAM(eTargetTeam).declareWar(getTeam(), true, NO_WARPLAN);
}
}
// davidlallen: city flip penalty end

bSomethingHappened = true;
}
}
}


The problem with this is that the 'acquireCity' function deletes the old city, creates a new one, transferring all the buildings, etc., from the old to the new. Which means the pointer 'pCity' no longer exists. If I'm right about this (which looks likely, it's a big no no), then I should be able to fix it easy. Won't know for sure until I can test it though.

Natasha
May 08, 2011, 03:10 PM
no, it is factored in on purpose ... This works on the same principle that the higher the risk you're taking attacking an enemy unit, the more xp you'll get.Good point.

The problem with this is that the 'acquireCity' function deletes the old city, creates a new one, transferring all the buildings, etc., from the old to the new. Which means the pointer 'pCity' no longer exists. If I'm right about this (which looks likely, it's a big no no), then I should be able to fix it easy. Won't know for sure until I can test it though.Hmm.. If it is the pCity pointer shouldn't it always not work? That's clearly not the case; several people, myself included, report that sometimes Annex City works perfectly fine.
If it's any help I've attached the save from my latest multi. I have a Truthsayer in the Fremen city of Tasmin Sink, Annex caused a crash there 3 or 4 times. (The save is from just prior to the second attempt.) Eventually I moved the spy to Windgap Sietch and tried to take that instead, causing another crash at which point we gave up for the time being...


289581

davidlallen
May 08, 2011, 05:42 PM
So, there's is to begin with, a miniscule chance the project actually creates a KH, which would be applied by promotion to an existing high experience melee unit.

I have a little trouble with both of these. First, as a player, I find it less fun when there is a small chance per turn of some important thing happening. It could be a long time away and I can't really plan around it. I can make plans around a project which has a fixed high hammer cost. Second, in lore, KH is a *breeding* program. So it makes less sense to me, to apply the bonus to an existing unit. In some games that span generations, a new unit appearing can be a child coming of age. This fits pretty well with Paul, I think.

Natasha
May 09, 2011, 05:19 AM
I have a little trouble with both of these. First, as a player, I find it less fun when there is a small chance per turn of some important thing happening. It could be a long time away and I can't really plan around it. I can make plans around a project which has a fixed high hammer cost. Second, in lore, KH is a *breeding* program. So it makes less sense to me, to apply the bonus to an existing unit. In some games that span generations, a new unit appearing can be a child coming of age.
Good points both. That's what I like about clearbeard's idea, a global counter that you can either leave as is and which eventually produces the KH on it's own, but which can also be worked at (repeatable project, political marriage etc.)
You already know where I was coming from with the idea of 'upgrading' an existing unit but I see your point on that as well. Still think the KH needs a non-trivial combat strength though, and needs to be able to gain xp.

Idea: Whenever you produce a melee unit, you can attempt to turn it into the KH. This option appears after completing a breeding project; it has a success chance based on the KH counter. If unsuccessful, there may be a chance the unit dies, otherwise the KH promotion(s) is/are applied.

ChrisAdams3997
May 09, 2011, 05:38 AM
If any of you are familiar with FfH, perhaps we could use something similar with how the gregori adventurers work where you pop the KH unit as now, but he's upgradable to any available melee unit class?

First, as a player, I find it less fun when there is a small chance per turn of some important thing happening. It could be a long time away and I can't really plan around i

The point of my proposal is so you can't 100% predictably plan around it ;). I see and know your point, but I'm thinking along the lines the KH shouldn't be just another wonder (especially given isn't only available to one civ), just another item to min/max (I put in this many hammers, I get this much return), but something you have to take a real risk for, something that's not just 'oh, the project is finished, time to go a-conquerin', but a real anticipation as you pour resources into it, and then... then... *BOOM* it happens. But it's only worth it if we can produce a system that really delivers that, if it can deliver that game after game, and if people even want it or prefer the predictability :lol:. So you can think of this as an 'exploratory' discussion where I'm not sold myself yet, just considering the possibilities.

One other important note here is that one of the key design goals I'd have is that the player has to always have some controlling involvement in the process. It can't just be a random waiting game, but at the same time, the player shouldn't have 100% control over when. If you invest resources into it (by whatever best method we can prescribe) it will happen, the more resources, the quicker, but you won't necessarily know how much or how long. The amount of variability in the system would of course be important to the feel and therefore it's balance and scaling (to game speed and world size) would be very important.

clearbeard
May 09, 2011, 06:05 AM
Second, in lore, KH is a *breeding* program.


This is a good point with regards to high randomness in the appearance of the KH, too. The Bene Gesserit as I recall were confident they would have the KH the generation after Paul (who was supposed to be a girl, and bred with Feyd Ruatha Harkonnen), he just accelerated the process with his own stubbornness and sense of self-importance. So some element of chance and variation makes sense in this context, but not one that produces highly random results. Maybe something along the lines of the Master of Orion 2 tech chances? You invest the base cost, and any investment beyond that adds to the chance of actually discovering the tech (or breeding the KH) the following turn.

If any of you are familiar with FfH, perhaps we could use something similar with how the gregori adventurers work where you pop the KH unit as now, but he's upgradable to any available melee unit class?
Works for me.

davidlallen
May 09, 2011, 08:23 AM
Another goal regarding the combat strength and "upgradeability" of the KH was that the unit should not be able to take a city, kill armies single-handedly, etc. The idea was to augment the combat strength or abilities of other units. The FFH Grigori adventurer, when "young", fits this because it is weak. But an "old" adventurer can and often does take cities by itself. I would rather avoid this. In a stack, the KH will be safe, but if you catch it on its own you might kill it.

I can't remember the character name offhand, but in book 1 there is a character who is "almost" a KH, from some other breeding line. That is what I was trying to capture with multiple projects; after one project you get a "useful" unit, once you complete multiple projects you could have multiple useful ones. But the latest one is always much more useful than the previous ones.

Natasha
May 09, 2011, 11:14 AM
Another goal regarding the combat strength and "upgradeability" of the KH was that the unit should not be able to take a city, kill armies single-handedly, etc. The idea was to augment the combat strength or abilities of other units. The FFH Grigori adventurer, when "young", fits this because it is weak. But an "old" adventurer can and often does take cities by itself. I would rather avoid this. In a stack, the KH will be safe, but if you catch it on its own you might kill it.
The way I see it, there are two points to consider regarding the KH.

1. Should there be randomness involved in creating him?
2. How powerful should he be?

Ad.1
I feel a certain amount of randomness would be cool. I agree with David's point that it shouldn't be too random, so some player actions should influence the process.

Ad.2
Also agreeing with David here, the KH shouldn't become a super unit that can do everything on his own. At the same time, I think that he should have some survivability even on his own.
Perhaps it's possible to go the FFH archer route here and give him a defensive strength boost only?
I also feel he should be able to gain xp in order to remain on par (or somewhat below par, more likely, given his stack boosting abilities) with later units.

ChrisAdams3997
May 09, 2011, 12:23 PM
I can't remember the character name offhand, but in book 1 there is a character who is "almost" a KH, from some other breeding line

I think Fenring was, though it's been a while since I've read the books.

Anyway, what ever way the consensus lands I'm pretty much good with it, wether that be the status quo or not, as the original design is by no means broken, but I think could be improved upon. Again, my main arguement is it's just a wee bit too predictable for a breeding program. Just ask any livestock breeders (if you know any) how easy or predictable they are :).

Chris

Legal Disclaimer:
I'm not nor have I any intention of turning this into a discussion of the reality of or inherent randomness of mandelian genetics as applied to livestock or other breeding programs. Any above statements related to the aforementioned matter is to be construed as a lighthearted and goodnatured poke at the present discussion. :D

Deliverator
May 10, 2011, 03:31 AM
I have released patch 1.9.3 here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10480629&postcount=64). Mostly to release new unit and building art.

MariusDarkheart
May 10, 2011, 08:42 AM
Hi, I recently re installed this mod. I'd forgotten how much fun it was. So many new changes... I'm not big on the randomness idea for the Kwisatz Haderach.
It was Fenring who was almost Kwisatz Haderach. "Fenring was one of the might-have-beens, an almost Kwisatz Haderach, crippled by a flaw in the genetic pattern-a eunuch, his talent concentrated into furtiveness and inner seclusion." (He's one of, if not the only character that can kill the real KH.)

ChrisAdams3997
May 11, 2011, 05:54 PM
lol, looked for the problem in the inquisition code today and found it. There is no inquisition code :lol:. I'll have to merge it in from RevDCM this weekend.

edit: I'd assumed it'd be in the dll like RevDCM inquisitions since that's what I've looked at before. Found the python code and having a look over it. I do hate python though... :rolleyes:

ChrisAdams3997
May 11, 2011, 08:07 PM
David or Deliverator, do you know if inquisitions was ever fully implemented and functioning? I've found the code placing the button, which we know works fine (mostly - it lacks any help text it seems), but there doesn't seem to be any actual connection linking the button to the rest of the inquisitions python. It just uses a WIDGET_GENERAL which doesn't help me much. Most widgets point to some spot in the dll where it tells the game to "do" something. I've got no idea what, if anything, the button is telling the game engine.

Now, I'm a C++ modder and python stuff always looks chaotic and a bit harder to follow to me (DuneWars.py is a pleasant exception to this :)). If I have my way, I'd just merge in the RevDCM inquisitions code and just ignore the python modules, but I don't want to jump the gun and do all that work if there is a simple fix using the existing code.

God-Emperor
May 11, 2011, 10:02 PM
The functioning of the button is linked to the "665, 665" part of the data for the button when it is set up in CvMainInterface.py.

The numbers are used in the handleInput function in the same CvMainInterface.py to determine what button was pushed.

The handleINput function then sends the modNetMessage with a message ID of 691 (and some additional data) when it encounters that particular pair of numbers in the data it gets.

Every modNetMessage should be handled in an event manager somewhere. BUG allows multiple handlers in multiple files to be registered for any event. There is one registered in InquisitionEvents.py that deals with message ID 691. That should be where the magic happens, assuming that BUG is loading that file and therefore getting that event handler for the mod net message registered.

davidlallen
May 12, 2011, 12:07 AM
Deliverator will have to answer. The inquisitor code is part of RevDCM. The RevDCM team rewrote this code at one point to move it from python to C++. After that, deliverator merged parts of the RevDCM code into DW. Possibly this broke at that time; or perhaps this code was tricky and some other DW change after that lost a key link in the code chain.

ChrisAdams3997
May 12, 2011, 05:49 AM
The functioning of the button is linked to the "665, 665" part of the data for the button when it is set up in CvMainInterface.py.

The numbers are used in the handleInput function in the same CvMainInterface.py to determine what button was pushed.

The handleINput function then sends the modNetMessage with a message ID of 691 (and some additional data) when it encounters that particular pair of numbers in the data it gets.

Every modNetMessage should be handled in an event manager somewhere. BUG allows multiple handlers in multiple files to be registered for any event. There is one registered in InquisitionEvents.py that deals with message ID 691. That should be where the magic happens, assuming that BUG is loading that file and therefore getting that event handler for the mod net message registered.

Thanks God-Emporer, that confirms some of my suspicions. I'd traced the call to 'Inquisition.doInquisitorPersecution' in InquisitionEvents.py, and figured it had something to do with the modNetMessage ID and the 651 in the button code, but, as I said, I'm a C++ modder and all this modNetMessage, and even worse, EventHandler stuff is all foreign to me.

Deliverator will have to answer. The inquisitor code is part of RevDCM. The RevDCM team rewrote this code at one point to move it from python to C++. After that, deliverator merged parts of the RevDCM code into DW. Possibly this broke at that time; or perhaps this code was tricky and some other DW change after that lost a key link in the code chain.

That's what I'd have thought too, which is why I was so surprised to find no inquisition code in the dll. I've been all over the RevDCM codebase in previous projects and knew more or less what I was looking for, but he didn't bring over the inquisition code. But going back to God-Emperor's post, this is what I found in BugEventManager.py:


# DuneWars
DuneWars.DuneWars(self, "")
#InquisitionEvents.InquisitionEvents(self)


So as he suggested, it's not being registered here. The real question is why it was commented out... It could have been because of a problem that needed fixing, or Deliverator was possibly considering merging the RevDCM inquisition code and therefore disabled it. So I'll have to uncomment it and see what happens.

Deliverator
May 13, 2011, 05:37 AM
That's what I'd have thought too, which is why I was so surprised to find no inquisition code in the dll. I've been all over the RevDCM codebase in previous projects and knew more or less what I was looking for, but he didn't bring over the inquisition code. But going back to God-Emperor's post, this is what I found in BugEventManager.py:

I think, from memory, this might be to do with the fact that I rebuilt Dune Wars 1.9.1 on Better BUG AI rather than RevDCM. Re-implementing Inquisitions using my adapted version of OrionVeteran's Inquisitions Mod was on my to-do list, but it seems never got to-done in the BBAI version. I think I got side-tracked into other things like making multiplayer work.

I think my working adaptation of Orion's Inquisitions is in one of the relatively recent versions of Dune Wars, perhaps 1.9 itself. I'll take a look when I get a chance.

ChrisAdams3997
May 14, 2011, 10:15 AM
Thanks Deliverator, if you find it let me know. I'm working on getting the new patch out in the next week and I'd like to cross that off the list :D.

Chris

ChrisAdams3997
May 15, 2011, 06:18 PM
I've been plugging at the zeal promo tags (deciphering the maxCombatStregth() function that adds up all the combat bonuses was tougher than I expected) and should have them implemented and working. The whole thing was in a very half finished state and I had to write most of it from the bottom up (other than adding the tags).

ForeignPlotModifier:

This one works mostly like you'd expect, if you're on foreign owned soil, you get x% combat bonus (attack and defense). The other caveat I've put in is that on unowned plots where enemy culture (culture of civs you are at war with) is greater than 1/3 of total culture and greater than your team's culture in the plot it still applies.

This is so if you burn down a city, you don't suddenly lose the bonus on those plots no longer covered by the enemy civ.

ForeignCityModifier:

This bonus applies to attacking and defending cities where enemy culture is greater than 30%. As the amount of enemy culture in the city goes up, so does the amount of the bonus, up to the max. I've made a significant change from how this was original coded (which was never finished of course). That 7% at zeal 2 from before would have given up to a 70% bonus as it was multiplied by (enemy culture/10)... (100/10)*7 = 70% max bonus. This was a little illogical.

Now the xml value represents the maximum bonus (given 90% or more enemy culture), and drops linearly as your culture increases, until the bonus becomes 0 when enemy culture reaches 30% or lower. It may sound complicated reading this (since I'm going into the technical side of it), but in practice it's very simple - the more enemy culture, the more bonus they get. Plain and simple.

The thing I'm worried about is it becoming too powerful for defending occupied cities with high enemy culture. So it's possible (given testing) I need to cut the bonus in half for defending. Zeal promoted units should be first and foremost all about attacking and conquering, let others hold it afterwards. Though they should still be well motivated to defend what they've recently conquered.

I've also rebalanced the zeal promos' bonuses a bit, and worked on the ai values for choosing it (which will probably need more tweaking after getting some testing in).

Here is the current setup for the promos:
<PromotionInfo>
<Type>PROMOTION_ZEAL1</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_ZEAL1</Description>
<Sound>AS2D_IF_LEVELUP</Sound>
<TechPrereq>TECH_FANATICISM</TechPrereq>
<iAttackPercent>10</iAttackPercent>
<iDefensePercent>-10</iDefensePercent>
<iForeignCityModifier>25</iForeignCityModifier>
<iForeignPlotModifier>7</iForeignPlotModifier>
<UnitCombats>
<UnitCombat>
<UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_MELEE</UnitCombatType>
<bUnitCombat>1</bUnitCombat>
</UnitCombat>
</UnitCombats>
<Button>,Art/Interface/Buttons/Promotions/Combat1.dds,Art/Interface/Buttons/dunepromoatlas2.dds,1,3</Button>
</PromotionInfo>
<PromotionInfo>
<Type>PROMOTION_ZEAL2</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_ZEAL2</Description>
<Sound>AS2D_IF_LEVELUP</Sound>
<PromotionPrereq>PROMOTION_ZEAL1</PromotionPrereq>
<TechPrereq>TECH_DIVINE_MANDATE</TechPrereq>
<StateReligionPrereq>RELIGION_MAHDI</StateReligionPrereq>
<bMustMaintain>1</bMustMaintain>
<iAttackPercent>8</iAttackPercent>
<iForeignCityModifier>35</iForeignCityModifier>
<iForeignPlotModifier>5</iForeignPlotModifier>
<UnitCombats>
<UnitCombat>
<UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_MELEE</UnitCombatType>
<bUnitCombat>1</bUnitCombat>
</UnitCombat>
</UnitCombats>
<Button>,Art/Interface/Buttons/Promotions/Combat1.dds,Art/Interface/Buttons/dunepromoatlas2.dds,2,3</Button>
</PromotionInfo>
<PromotionInfo>
<Type>PROMOTION_ZEAL3</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_ZEAL3</Description>
<Sound>AS2D_IF_LEVELUP</Sound>
<PromotionPrereq>PROMOTION_ZEAL2</PromotionPrereq>
<TechPrereq>TECH_PRESCIENCE</TechPrereq>
<StateReligionPrereq>RELIGION_MAHDI</StateReligionPrereq>
<bBlitz>1</bBlitz>
<bMustMaintain>1</bMustMaintain>
<bOffensiveVictoryMove>1</bOffensiveVictoryMove>
<iAttackPercent>7</iAttackPercent>
<iVictoryHeal>25</iVictoryHeal>
<UnitCombats>
<UnitCombat>
<UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_MELEE</UnitCombatType>
<bUnitCombat>1</bUnitCombat>
</UnitCombat>
</UnitCombats>
<Button>,Art/Interface/Buttons/Promotions/Combat1.dds,Art/Interface/Buttons/dunepromoatlas2.dds,3,3</Button>
</PromotionInfo>


I'm trying to make this worthwhile to take in lieu of the CityRaider promo line that IMO competes with it. It needs to have a different feel from it and reasons to choose it over CityRaider that just anybody can get. Any thoughts on this are welcome.

After I add in the text for the tags and run a quick play test to make sure I didn't bring in any obvious crashes :rolleyes:, I'd like to release a 1.9.4 beta (to check that it's all working like I think it is before the true 1.9.4 release) in the next day or two, so keep your eyes open :).

Chris