C2C is currently expanding in many directions at once. It has been suggested that we poll of player base for guidelines on what we should focus on for the next release.

There are many things that are under discussion and some are at the prototype and development stage.

Big changes

- Multiple Maps - Galactic Era (or at least the solar system)
- Multiple Maps - Tactical Battles
- Multiple Maps - Underground/Underwater
- Nomad Start
- Bad stuff happens - disease, alien invasions
- Unit supply lines
- Expand diplomacy (barbarian, goody village and other WLBO and Thomas stuff)
- Religion overhall
- Dynamic Trait System and Era End Achievement
- Custom Properties - Air/Water Pollution
- Custom Properties - Climate and Weather
- Progenitor Culture System
- Guilds Overhaul

could you write a short description of every choise to undestand what we are going to vote

This poll reminded me of a Poll that Afforess made a long time ago for RoM/AND. Perhaps some of his unfinished ideas could be made in C2C. Note that some are obsolete such as the goods system now that we have unlimited resources but others may be of interest.

Question of the Week: Next Feature? - By Afforess
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=359410

It was a tough choice, too bad I couldn't choose both the 'ProGenitor Civ' and the dynamic trait system.

Multiple maps, nomads, and supply lines were also great picks. Tough to choose.

Expanded Diplomacy
Multiple Maps Galactic
Progenitor Culture System (if I understand it right)
Guild overhaul

The one I don't want to see happen is Religion Overhaul with the only the following exceptions: to Remove Limited and Choose Options. I think that Religions with Multiple Spread is perfection and does not need to be overhauled/ updated/ etc..

JosEPh

Guild Overhaul, and a few wonder balances for me.
nerf encyclopedia, and might as well reduce or remove fusion's +1000 hammers per city until its ready to be used. ATM its just a massive jump where everyone gets superpowers. I know its meant for galatic erra stuff, but that's not ready anyways.

I voted for galactic era multimaps, sice they bring a new game element that combines my love for civ with my love for sci fi space games.

On second place is supply lines, closelx followed by the expanded diplomacy.

So much for my wishes. Realisticly speaking: you already got some work on the nomads, would be a wasre to stop it for something else.

I voted for nomad/weather (I guess it's included in that option)

I understand that a lot of people want the other maps but then again it is uncertain if late game can handle it and if they ever get into a not-boring (not-lonely #1) late game... so...

To me this feels like putting the cart before the horse.
Also, 'fish always begins to stink at the head'.
So, try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Ok, my supply of multi-cultural proverbs is used up for today...

omg vote dynamic traits as if you will ever get to multiple maps 90% of the time, no need to rush for this! Whereas traits atm are completely unbalanced and need to be redone.

I'm casting my vote for getting the Nomad System finished as it bears a direct influence on the early game. Right now there's not much to do in the early game with all the additional techs set up for just the Nomad System. Also it will mean balancing off the tech costs for both Prehistoric and possibly later Eras when the Nomad Techs are all in place, which is also something I set a high priority on.

Cheers

My vote is for the nomad start first as it is early game so far more people will get to enjoy it.

I have also voted nomad, because:

First impressions last. Early game is what people play first , and every time (well, barring advanced start)
The current early game feels a bit 'sparse', especially as its tech tree expands (and therefore needs more usage)

Expanded dimplomacy and supply lines (limits on early movement) are the things I would like to see the most. Dynmanic traits and progentior cultures would be next on my list.

I think the Unheathiness mod and like DRJ, the Weather focus should be added.
I also think the Nomad mod should probably be the smartest focus, but personally I want to see the multiple map overlays: galactic, weather, and underwater get some love:)

i voted nomad but i think you should add to the guilds the ones from the scenario "crossroads of the world"

I voted multiple maps (first on space, maybe later on underwater/subterranean and so on)

by the way, what is unit supply lines?

could you write a short description of every choise to undestand what we are going to vote

This was my first attempt at one of these. Next time I will put links to the discussions in.

I voted multiple maps (first on space, maybe later on underwater/subterranean and so on)

by the way, what is unit supply lines?

Unit supply lines restricts how far a unit can move away from your nation.

Multi-Maps, definitly. That is just such a revolution in CIV modding that we can't pass it up.

Nomad Camps are certainly second.

My vote is for the nomad start first as it is early game so far more people will get to enjoy it.

I have also voted nomad, because:

First impressions last. Early game is what people play first , and every time (well, barring advanced start)
The current early game feels a bit 'sparse', especially as its tech tree expands (and therefore needs more usage)


I am going to have to go with these guys, i never thought of it before, but they are correct, "First Impressions" are a MUST!!:p

:mischief:So we reward Hydro's knee jerk reaction of adding more prehistoric techs before they are needed. :sigh: How will he ever learn. :mischief:

I have not even tried AIAndy's stuff yet.

First things first, iirc nomads were way before sedentary lifestyle. ;)

My personal chart:

Nomad prototype
Unit supply
Progenitor Culture system
Dynamic Trait System & Era Achievements
Multiple Maps Prototype - Galactic Era

I'm in agreement with the nomadic start over the additional maps because I think we still have a lot to accomplish there before we should be opening up the mod to such an enormously unstable element that affects the END of the game (IF you get there) rather than the beginning.

That said, the additional map tools will be amazing, awesome, supercool and badass but I suspect its going to be all consuming to get it to work nicely and is best for that stage of development after we've really mastered the frontend. I'm also a little concerned it will write off a lot of potential players by overtaxing already pressed older computer systems. In that regard, some time and delay is our friend there as it gives our following some additional time to update their systems.

My personal chart:


Multiple Maps Prototype - Galactic Era
Nomad prototype
Unit Supply
Dynamic Trait System & Era Achievements
Progenitor Culture system

Religion overhaul. Put some meat into the game.

I'd like to add one not mentioned: BALANCING FARMS & COTTAGES so that cottages are an equal strategy to farm spamming.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11433822#post11433822 balance thread <
Farms vs Cottages??

I'd like to add one not mentioned: BALANCING FARMS & COTTAGES so that cottages are an equal strategy to farm spamming.

It isn't in the list because its not a major piece of work with large ramifications. In fact it probably just needs a few XML tweaks to make cottages improve with techs the way farms do. If you have specific suggestions for such additions post them (in the existing cottages vs farms thread please) and I'll make a few tweaks (or ask SO to do so since he is the keeper of the tech tree) in the next few weeks.

An expanded Galactic Era sounds pretty good. Then again Nomad and Supply Lines would be nice too. :)

So this mean that multimaps are going to be worked on after the freeze? Since its in the lead?

So this mean that multimaps are going to be worked on after the freeze? Since its in the lead?

No, this is just a guideline. However I think we should get something working for both Nomad Start and Multi maps.

So this mean that multimaps are going to be worked on after the freeze? Since its in the lead?

That depends on the political system: in some states like France for example there are presidential run-off polls, only for those 2 candidates who got the most votes in the first round can be voted in the secound round.

regarding that we have 39%, 32% and 7%, 10%, 10% the people voting for the last three suggestions should have a chance to cast their vote for either of the first two. At least in in proportional representation-driven Europe with its many coalitions this would be the treatment of choice ;-)

That depends on the political system: in some states like France for example there are presidential run-off polls, only for those 2 candidates who got the most votes in the first round can be voted in the secound round.

regarding that we have 39%, 32% and 7%, 10%, 10% the people voting for the last three suggestions should have a chance to cast their vote for either of the first two. At least in in proportional representation-driven Europe with its many coalitions this would be the treatment of choice ;-)

As with anything, it comes down to the modders' preference, illuminated by the results here. I plan to work on a variant of multi-maps to provide viewports (see my post in the maps thread about supporting very large maps), but that will almost certainly enable multi-maps more generally as a side-effect, though I admit to it not being MY main goal. I am unsure yet whether I will work on this in C2C, or work on helping provide it in the multi-map mod first, but either way I'll be porting the multi-map mod stuff (all of it) into C2C at some point once it's resonably stable.

Since MY main goal in this is very large map support, I expect I'll also be doing lots of performance scalability work too.

That depends on the political system: in some states like France for example there are presidential run-off polls, only for those 2 candidates who got the most votes in the first round can be voted in the secound round.

regarding that we have 39%, 32% and 7%, 10%, 10% the people voting for the last three suggestions should have a chance to cast their vote for either of the first two. At least in in proportional representation-driven Europe with its many coalitions this would be the treatment of choice ;-)

As Koshling says, the Multi-Map implementation is totally up to modders preference, specifically his, as he and AIAndy are the only ones who can actually implement the framework for this in the SDK. Once that is done, the rest of us can start adding content to the Galactic Era. :D

As Koshling says, the Multi-Map implementation is totally up to modders preference, specifically his, as he and AIAndy are the only ones who can actually implement the framework for this in the SDK. Once that is done, the rest of us can start adding content to the Galactic Era. :D

I'm hoping it can be there at a prototype level in the SVN in a few weeks

I'm hoping it can be there at a prototype level in the SVN in a few weeks

Yay, that's great! :clap::cooool:

:bump:

:bump:

This is a hobby for all of us, and so while I was one of the people who voted for Multi-Maps last year, I feel no obligation to work on it if I don't want to.

This is a hobby for all of us, and so while I was one of the people who voted for Multi-Maps last year, I feel no obligation to work on it if I don't want to.

But do you want to?

But do you want to?

Yes, but it is a real pain working with that stuff. I'd personally like to see what GeoRealism offers in this regard before going whole hog on this.

There is also a considerable bit of UI that would need to be done, which is totally not my thing.

What's the GeoRealism have to do with multimaps? I thought multimaps were just getting units from one map to another. No matter what the map script we are using.

Because if multimaps are not possible, I would like to move on to plan B, which would be the map with subdivisions on the same map. We know that's possible, but its not as cool as multimaps. But I would use it if multimaps are never coming, since we need something for the "Cosmos" part of the mod.

What's the GeoRealism have to do with multimaps? I thought multimaps were just getting units from one map to another. No matter what the map script we are using.

Because if multimaps are not possible, I would like to move on to plan B, which would be the map with subdivisions on the same map. We know that's possible, but its not as cool as multimaps. But I would use it if multimaps are never coming, since we need something for the "Cosmos" part of the mod.

Multiple Maps are most certainly possible, it is just a matter of none of us really wanting to work on them. But now that we have Viewports there isn't any software reason so far as I know that we can't have Multi-Maps.

OK, so for NOW MM are not going in anytime soon, from what i am reading, at least not for the next 4 months, am i correct here? So its OFF the table till then, hows that?

OK then, lets move ON to the 2nd most, how involved is THAT (Nomad Start)?
Does anyone even know anything about this?? I am hoping not just one person?(AIAndy)

Give US the who, what where, when and how Please??

Thing is, about all that, the reason multi-maps is delayed is the same reason any other united direction is delayed. There are too many projects still in the works now. Once those start clearing up, yes, both Multi-Maps and Nomadic Start become immediate goals!

Thing is, about all that, the reason multi-maps is delayed is the same reason any other united direction is delayed. There are too many projects still in the works now. Once those start clearing up, yes, both Multi-Maps and Nomadic Start become immediate goals!

Sounds very reasonable to me. So all these on HOLD then, till 3 months from now?? Enough time everyone??

I'd love to make promises but I rarely find enough time to keep them ;) I'll do what I can!

Sounds very reasonable to me. So all these on HOLD then, till 3 months from now?? Enough time everyone??
I am not very motivated to do anything for multi maps because it is annoying code and few will ever get to the point where they will enjoy it.

Nomad start on the other hand is something that will have an immediate impact and that motivates me a lot more.

I am not very motivated to do anything for multi maps because it is annoying code and few will ever get to the point where they will enjoy it.

Nomad start on the other hand is something that will have an immediate impact and that motivates me a lot more.

Well someone could always start in the larger eras.

But even so the stuff implemented from the Nomad start could be used for space colonies. So Nomad stuff gives a double bonus to where it can be used.

Then again multimaps could be used for underwater/underground maps which could come sooner in the game.

Last time I remember, we hadn't even balanced Ancient start, let alone Galactic.

Last time I remember, we hadn't even balanced Ancient start, let alone Galactic.

We got about half way through getting the Ancient Era start workable.

AIAndy makes a good point, which is why I am in favor of some deterministic way of starting in the later eras which would give you the ability to start later with a 'prebuilt' civ (as opposed to DH's ancient era start which works OK for ancient but won't scale well).

Also, I am going to try and do some multi-maps code soon, but I can not do the UI for it, so anything ingame will have to wait for that expertise to happen.

AIAndy makes a good point, which is why I am in favor of some deterministic way of starting in the later eras which would give you the ability to start later with a 'prebuilt' civ (as opposed to DH's ancient era start which works OK for ancient but won't scale well).
I totally agree that we should have this project in development - then again, I think we've been chipping away at it here and there for a while now. It could do for some additional direct focus from someone, perhaps you ls, to get it fully fleshed out.

I totally agree that we should have this project in development - then again, I think we've been chipping away at it here and there for a while now. It could do for some additional direct focus from someone, perhaps you ls, to get it fully fleshed out.

If it were totally up to me I'd work on multi-map stuff to the extent I can and you could look into something like I suggested for later starts. Somewhere I have a draft of what that would look like, if you want I can post it here for you (and others) to look at.

It'd be a late stage devel project for me if I'm to work on that at all. I don't personally ever forsee myself wanting to start at a later era than the beginning. So I wouldn't have personal motive to develop in that direction despite understanding what it would mean for others, and to the Transhuman/Galactic eras.

Certainly I have no problem with you selecting priorities of your own though ;) We're basically all saying here that we not only have that right but need to exercise it to be as productive as we can be for the mod in general so if multi-maps drives you, if that's what you most want to see come about, I'm pretty sure we're all behind you on that!

Honestly, my biggest hangup is that we need to be able to generate the alternative maps and that's what would take a lot of research. I don't see the point in doing much on the project until we have that step in place. Some UI work would be necessary too but as for the transfer between maps and how that works, I'll assert that I'd happily work on that once I feel we have the rest in progress enough to feel confident that work would not be unnecessarily timed too early. I'm hoping I can finish a number of projects I'm on before I have to get to that though so I'm very patient here.

AIAndy makes a good point, which is why I am in favor of some deterministic way of starting in the later eras which would give you the ability to start later with a 'prebuilt' civ (as opposed to DH's ancient era start which works OK for ancient but won't scale well).

Also, I am going to try and do some multi-maps code soon, but I can not do the UI for it, so anything ingame will have to wait for that expertise to happen.

You should ask Civ Fuehrer for help on the UI. He has done it before and of course is one of the reasons why we have the Galactic Era. Perhaps he can help you.

My opinion has little to no weight as of yet but to me it makes more sense to finish adding features to the prehistoric era and do a final balancing before moving on to Ancient. Nomad start needs to be put in before you can finalize balancing for the long term.

to me it makes more sense to finish adding features to the prehistoric era and do a final balancing before moving on to Ancient. Nomad start needs to be put in before you can finalize balancing for the long term.

I agree with this except that I'd add an appeal for us to make the Nomadic Start optional, thus demanding that it BLEND in with the early game balance and progression expectations as we've already established it - things could be adapted a bit to make more room if it needs more 'time' to resolve this stage of the game during a Nomadic Start but all in all, it should not demand big changes to the tech tree or a huge number of new units.

Most buildings can be addressed in alternative ways (promotions and/or improvements, both of which BECOME the equivalent building in the city when the city is finally planted.) so almost everything can be done in the Nomadic Start in parallel to the progression we already have.

However, some of the culture issues, leader issues and such that we're currently discussing could vastly alter how we need to approach some elements of the Nomadic Start so I feel hammering out those details actually takes a small priority even if it doesn't feel as mission critical right now.

In a lot of ways I think we're more ready now to work on Nomadic Start than we were when we suggested to begin work on it and that's largely due to having a fairly decently established early game balance now (which was far more in-flux before.) I still feel there's a few things we should work out about how the overall game should function before we're quite ready to work on Nomadic Start because once we have it, we'll have to adjust both Nomadic Start and non-Nomadic Start scenarios in parallel with any other adjustment to come yet to the early ages.

It'd be a late stage devel project for me if I'm to work on that at all. I don't personally ever forsee myself wanting to start at a later era than the beginning. So I wouldn't have personal motive to develop in that direction despite understanding what it would mean for others, and to the Transhuman/Galactic eras.

Certainly I have no problem with you selecting priorities of your own though ;) We're basically all saying here that we not only have that right but need to exercise it to be as productive as we can be for the mod in general so if multi-maps drives you, if that's what you most want to see come about, I'm pretty sure we're all behind you on that!

Honestly, my biggest hangup is that we need to be able to generate the alternative maps and that's what would take a lot of research. I don't see the point in doing much on the project until we have that step in place. Some UI work would be necessary too but as for the transfer between maps and how that works, I'll assert that I'd happily work on that once I feel we have the rest in progress enough to feel confident that work would not be unnecessarily timed too early. I'm hoping I can finish a number of projects I'm on before I have to get to that though so I'm very patient here.

I'm guessing that we could (mis)use GeoRealism to generate maps for the other Multi-Maps (except for Galactic, but that is another issue entirely). But my biggest disincentive to working on Multi-Maps is that it will be incredibly hard to get to or test them in a game setting, combined with the fact that the TH era is a bit of a mess and has very little content or balancing, so it seems that we are at another catch 22 situation there.

I'm guessing that we could (mis)use GeoRealism to generate maps for the other Multi-Maps (except for Galactic, but that is another issue entirely). But my biggest disincentive to working on Multi-Maps is that it will be incredibly hard to get to or test them in a game setting, combined with the fact that the TH era is a bit of a mess and has very little content or balancing, so it seems that we are at another catch 22 situation there.

Well... we could still start in the TH era... I suppose it would take some work as mentioned to get a proper start enough to test those maps.

The problem with the idea of (mis)using GeoRealism is that I believe, if I'm understanding this properly, it doesn't CREATE a map but is merely a very powerful map EDITOR that redefines the map according to... well... georealism. That kind of ability is amazing, yes, which is why I'm hoping we can get some help from prime on the subject but apparently he's just as in the dark on original mapscripting as you and I are. The only one here I think that has that skillset enough to move forward on that would be AIAndy. For the rest of us, we'd really have to:
1) Figure out how mapscripting works in the first place
then
2) Create a dll driven map generation structure that is generic enough to work with a host of differing variables enough to be capable of generating all the various sorts of maps we need according to differing xml defined rules.
and
3) Define the timing of this map generation. I believe we've been given the way to store and refer to the maps once created and that's been Koshling's all too professional contribution.

THEN we work into
4) Python scripting for various special map effects such as planet orbits.
5) Develop UI methods to switch between maps at will that are a bit easier and smoother than hinging on the Military Advisor (though since that's done this step should be much easier overall as its just about adding more functionality to the main screen via new button(s))
5) Develop the methods of travel between those maps for units. (This would be what I would be able to do with my current skillset I believe.) The first part of Step 3 and this one may have to blend a bit but I'm thinking a tech OR wonder achievement would be the best way to call for initiation of a map instead(just as it does for map centering.) One should have the other maps available for some (possibly limited) study before being able to send units to them. We were able to view the moon for a long time with telescopes before we could go there!

What was it you had in mind to work on specifically?

EDIT: Another item that would NEED to be addressed before moving on any of this: Repairing the 'area' issues that arise when we have more dynamic maps that change during the game.

I'm guessing that we could (mis)use GeoRealism to generate maps for the other Multi-Maps (except for Galactic, but that is another issue entirely). But my biggest disincentive to working on Multi-Maps is that it will be incredibly hard to get to or test them in a game setting, combined with the fact that the TH era is a bit of a mess and has very little content or balancing, so it seems that we are at another catch 22 situation there.

I'm guessing that we could (mis)use GeoRealism to generate maps for the other Multi-Maps (except for Galactic, but that is another issue entirely). But my biggest disincentive to working on Multi-Maps is that it will be incredibly hard to get to or test them in a game setting, combined with the fact that the TH era is a bit of a mess and has very little content or balancing, so it seems that we are at another catch 22 situation there.

As soon as all the new terrain types of PrimeOver are added and edited in the GEM, I was going to make a TH era Map. That would be ok for testing multi maps I think. Also, it would be great to test TH era stuff and flesh that era out a bit more.

And as for multimaps in general, I'd like to see them in the game, but I also see no point to add them until the game is a good balanced challenge from start to the late modern era.

I am a bit underinformed most likely but what is the big problem behind "multimaps" idea?

I mean I understand they are hard to achieve without open code so why not make galactic era other way around?
- One big map separated with enough pure black tiles so other planets are not visible and some kind of lock-camera so You wont scroll through the entire "map" without having proper tech,
- Landing on new planet via spawnpoint (we start from our NASA station or whatever and "land" spawn randomly on desired "planet" which is map section from x1,y1 to x2,y2?),
- Of course we avoid whole space battles thing this way but it's easy to make and - be serious - real space journey would be more like "find planet, make insane investmet to colony it as a one-time-trip and MAYBE establish some transport between planets" then "star wars, hell yeah",
- We also force flat-map playing this way but again, we can live without that,

Sorry if it was discussed before - I'm having little time these days so searching through the forum is not an option - don't be mad ;-)

I'm guessing that we could (mis)use GeoRealism to generate maps for the other Multi-Maps (except for Galactic, but that is another issue entirely). But my biggest disincentive to working on Multi-Maps is that it will be incredibly hard to get to or test them in a game setting, combined with the fact that the TH era is a bit of a mess and has very little content or balancing, so it seems that we are at another catch 22 situation there.

We just add multiple prehistoric maps artificially as a test vehicle. Can make it a game option 'start on two worlds' with an alternate timeline 'inter-dimensional portals' in which either a 'magic' tech is discovered that enables map-crossing, or a natural feature (a portal) is simply on the map that does it. IMO this has merit in its own right as an alternate timeline (with naturally occurring map portals), but it is a good test vehicle too.

We just add multiple prehistoric maps artificially as a test vehicle. Can make it a game option 'start on two worlds' with an alternate timeline 'inter-dimensional portals' in which either a 'magic' tech is discovered that enables map-crossing, or a natural feature (a portal) is simply on the map that does it. IMO this has merit in its own right as an alternate timeline (with naturally occurring map portals), but it is a good test vehicle too.

I wasn't really refering to testing issues, we can always fix that with creative debug code and maps. I was saying that until normal players are getting to that point in normal games, either from faster turn times or from starting at a later era (or both) then there isn't a whole lot of point in adding actual new maps. That was why I was asking Thunderbrd about the later start stuff.

We just add multiple prehistoric maps artificially as a test vehicle. Can make it a game option 'start on two worlds' with an alternate timeline 'inter-dimensional portals' in which either a 'magic' tech is discovered that enables map-crossing, or a natural feature (a portal) is simply on the map that does it. IMO this has merit in its own right as an alternate timeline (with naturally occurring map portals), but it is a good test vehicle too.

Yeah... talk about taking a 'New World' setting to a whole new 'dimension'! I like this idea actually. Gets us working on and hammering out elements of multi-maps without having to conquer our biggest bugbear - the generation of and interaction with new map scripts.

@ls612: What do you feel we need for the later start development plan? Can we start a new thread or do we already have one for that? I know DH has spent a lot of time considering that and has done a number of things to move in that direction already so at this point we'd need to figure out what we need exactly (and how does this really differ from an Advanced Start gameoption? I know there are intended differences but it should be discussed.) What I think we need to do is identify EXACTLY what needs to be done in code, xml, python etc...

I agree with this except that I'd add an appeal for us to make the Nomadic Start optional, thus demanding that it BLEND in with the early game balance and progression expectations as we've already established it - things could be adapted a bit to make more room if it needs more 'time' to resolve this stage of the game during a Nomadic Start but all in all, it should not demand big changes to the tech tree or a huge number of new units.

Would it be acceptable to make the option of not playing nomad start to just start at sedentary lifestyle? I feel like it is going to be hard to mesh the two options together and balance them.

I agree with not needing to change much in regards to techs and units.

If we find its nearly impossible to do so I'd take a concession on that but I don't think it'll be as tough as you may think. However, what is it you see that would make that as hard as you think it will be? Maybe I'm overlooking a consideration or two.

If we find its nearly impossible to do so I'd take a concession on that but I don't think it'll be as tough as you may think. However, what is it you see that would make that as hard as you think it will be? Maybe I'm overlooking a consideration or two.

Since running through all the XML for the leaders over and over to make sure the are matching up well enough with the normal method and making sure they are diverse enough I have been taking breaks here and there with a write up of nomad start concepts.

It is going to take a lot of discussion and thought before anything is done. I guess I was more on the train of thought of replacing the current structure than balancing the two options. I will putting up a full layout of my ideas here in the near future. I was going for more of a promotions on units opposed to buildings and I feel like that would be hard to balance. I also was liking the idea of switching up gameplay mechanics to add more diversity to gameplay as C2C is such a long and epic play through. I like the idea of a discovery approach to tech research. You wouldn't select techs they would get researched based on the way you are playing. It sounds weird without explaining in depth. I guess if I keep in mind balancing it with normal play while considering nomad options then it could work.

@ls612: What do you feel we need for the later start development plan? Can we start a new thread or do we already have one for that? I know DH has spent a lot of time considering that and has done a number of things to move in that direction already so at this point we'd need to figure out what we need exactly (and how does this really differ from an Advanced Start gameoption? I know there are intended differences but it should be discussed.) What I think we need to do is identify EXACTLY what needs to be done in code, xml, python etc...

Procedural generation of Civ stuff (cities with buildings, units, improvements). Here is my original idea.

The second thing would be an actual game change, and a big one. Essentially, here is how it would work:
1. You can start in the Classical or Renaissance Eras, and that would work normally for buildings that care about those things.
2. If you chose to start in one of those two eras, some things would happen.
3. Each civ would get all of the techs up to the start of the chosen era (same as it works now)
4. After map generation, each player would be iterated though a number of times equal to the suggest size option in the WorldSizeInfos (Classical), or until there isn’t any room left in your continent (Renaissance). In each iteration, a city would be placed at the best city spot near the start position, so starting in Classical would give 8-14 cities at game start, and Renaissance would give 20-30 cities at game start.
5. Each city would then be given population equal to ½ the total food yield in its fat cross (or equal to that in Renaissance).
6. Each city would be connected to the other cities with the best available road at the time (think like Via Appia).
7. All resources in city vicinities would be improved and connected to the road networks.
8. Each city would get one worker (two in renaissance) to improve the other tiles.
9. For Each City certain buildings would be built (probably based off of the start conditions in the XML, although other algorithms could be considered). I am unsure of what specifically this would be, that would be open to input.
10. Each City would get 2 Archer-types and 3 Town Watch types to defend with (or double that in Renaissance).
11. World Wonders would be randomly built in cities based off of their size.
12. National Wonders would do the same, excepting that they would be done for each player as opposed to globally.

This would give a valid and very good advanced start option and a good way to jump into later eras right away, which would considerably alleviate the issue of people only ever seeing the early eras.
This is a major proposal, but I think it would be technically doable, and since it would be in the DLL it would be compiled and therefore not take too much time (and whatever time it takes would be a one-time occurrence).

Since running through all the XML for the leaders over and over to make sure the are matching up well enough with the normal method and making sure they are diverse enough I have been taking breaks here and there with a write up of nomad start concepts.

It is going to take a lot of discussion and thought before anything is done. I guess I was more on the train of thought of replacing the current structure than balancing the two options. I will putting up a full layout of my ideas here in the near future. I was going for more of a promotions on units opposed to buildings and I feel like that would be hard to balance. I also was liking the idea of switching up gameplay mechanics to add more diversity to gameplay as C2C is such a long and epic play through. I like the idea of a discovery approach to tech research. You wouldn't select techs they would get researched based on the way you are playing. It sounds weird without explaining in depth. I guess if I keep in mind balancing it with normal play while considering nomad options then it could work.
So tech discovery wouldn't be about purchasing the tech so much as it would be about qualifying for it and being awarded it via the event system? Could work but might be much harder to ensure a fair progression rate between civs. Or you'd have progress scales for each tech and various differing activities would earn more on those scales... but this method would make each tech require a bit of specialized programming.

I'd ask for more explanation on these ideas, in more depth, in the nomadic start thread so we don't bog down with the train of thought here.


@ls612: Alright, taking a look at this in greater detail than I have before:
1-3 are as it is now.
4. After map generation, each player would be iterated though a number of times equal to the suggest size option in the WorldSizeInfos (Classical), or until there isn’t any room left in your continent (Renaissance). In each iteration, a city would be placed at the best city spot near the start position, so starting in Classical would give 8-14 cities at game start, and Renaissance would give 20-30 cities at game start.How does this differ from the Advanced Start mechanism that allows you to have a number of points to build an initial civilization with the default point setting established at the beginning of the game? Is this just a way to make things get setup in a more streamlined fashion? I suppose I don't like Advanced Start for just that reason, a lot of BS setup time. But then again, having my cities placed randomly wouldn't sit well either as I already tend to demolish enemies just so I can place cities in the newly invaded territories where I feel they make more sense to go. Maybe if we had something LIKE the Advanced Start but say give the player X number of cities, a starting spot, then click to plant and a limit to how far away from another city you can plant another... but then again that might not work either because it could conflict with the other players around you, possibly leading to setup situations where the last player in a region doesn't have enough room to place all his cities... I dunno. I suppose the more I think about it the more I can see the rationale behind the Advanced start mechanism as it is. (At least where cities are concerned.)

5. Each city would then be given population equal to ½ the total food yield in its fat cross (or equal to that in Renaissance).
I'd think you'd want to establish a core city 'birth date' then space out more 'birth dates' in the rest of the cities then base the size on a presumed amount of food collection into a calculation formed around the presumed age of the city.

6. Each city would be connected to the other cities with the best available road at the time (think like Via Appia).
7. All resources in city vicinities would be improved and connected to the road networks.
8. Each city would get one worker (two in renaissance) to improve the other tiles.
9. For Each City certain buildings would be built (probably based off of the start conditions in the XML, although other algorithms could be considered). I am unsure of what specifically this would be, that would be open to input.
10. Each City would get 2 Archer-types and 3 Town Watch types to defend with (or double that in Renaissance).
All just ways to streamline and enforce simpler rules to the Advanced Start really. These, I don't think are a bad idea but it'd take some careful thought how to enact this sort of start along with the city and territory capture system built into the Advanced Start option. Perhaps another option entirely that gives you a limited Advanced Start mechanism then streamlines the rest in the manner you've just expressed.


11. World Wonders would be randomly built in cities based off of their size.
12. National Wonders would do the same, excepting that they would be done for each player as opposed to globally.
This would be frustrating, as mentioned before, but what COULD be done is have all wonders equally divied out to players or put all wonders that would've been built up to this time into a pool and in turns the players pick one and place it into one of their cities until no further wonders remain. This would include both Team Projects and World Wonders.

Then national wonders could be placed one at a time (and potentially skipped if the player doesn't want it.)

This mechanism could be a follow up in a new Advanced Start style gameoption that bundles in with the concepts above.


Alternatively, just establish a lot more points into the defaults on the current Advanced Start method and establish some 'best practices' on how to set things up and post those best practices here on the site to help people get themselves set up faster. It's a bit like using the WB and can be a large and frustrating setup job if you aren't too familiar with it. But it does take all this into account, just not as simplified.

@Thunderbrd:

I don't know about others but I have absolutely no desire to spend several hours in Advanced Start micromanaging the making of a later civ on a later start era. That and the AI has no idea how to properly use Advanced start. With this the AI would get the same stuff to start more or less as the human, and it would go far faster.

True... thus why I'm suggesting we design a streamlined Advanced start, primarily because randomly placed cities and wonders are simply intolerable. Getting a full understanding of how the current advanced start works in code would be the key to working that out I think. Probably a complex web of selection lists, much of which could pretty much be copied over or called as is for the new method. It'd be more about what to take out (carefully) of its options and then the rest takes place afterwards, autobuildings, routes, improvements etc...

Either way there'd have to be some supportive AI.

I suppose if you aren't as anal as I am about city placement and wonder placement, the routine you suggest could be pulled off easier but it'd be hard to want to use it for those reasons. Additionally, how would you address the automatic assignment of city placements? Wouldn't be much different working that out as it would be to working out the AI for the other method anyhow.

True... thus why I'm suggesting we design a streamlined Advanced start, primarily because randomly placed cities and wonders are simply intolerable. Getting a full understanding of how the current advanced start works in code would be the key to working that out I think. Probably a complex web of selection lists, much of which could pretty much be copied over or called as is for the new method. It'd be more about what to take out (carefully) of its options and then the rest takes place afterwards, autobuildings, routes, improvements etc...

Either way there'd have to be some supportive AI.

I suppose if you aren't as anal as I am about city placement and wonder placement, the routine you suggest could be pulled off easier but it'd be hard to want to use it for those reasons. Additionally, how would you address the automatic assignment of city placements? Wouldn't be much different working that out as it would be to working out the AI for the other method anyhow.

Same way the AI addresses the optimal placement of cities, more or less. It does that pretty well nowadays, so I personally wouldn't mind that for my civ at the start, if I was choosing to start later in the first place. Remember that you adn the AI are starting off on equal footing in such a situation.

For Buildings we have a thread. I reckon that barbarians settling as a nation should be treated in the same way as if they had started in the average era of all other nations or maybe one behind to give a better game.

Reminder of definitions:-Star in Era = all cities get buildings in the list appropriate to the build era

Free at Tech = only new cities get the building free after the tech has been discovered. It does not work for buildings that require the Palace and maybe some other buildings at the moment.

Auto build = any city that meets the requirements gets this building

Note 1. Auto build checks for all prerequisites. Free at Tech checks for none.

Note 2. There has been a request that no buildings with any negative values be included in either Start in Era or Free at Tech.

For cities, units and improvements we should also look at the barbarian settling down code and perhaps the rebellion code for the units also. In fact for units I would have thought all three would use the same code modules.

Same way the AI addresses the optimal placement of cities, more or less. It does that pretty well nowadays, so I personally wouldn't mind that for my civ at the start, if I was choosing to start later in the first place. Remember that you adn the AI are starting off on equal footing in such a situation.
While I don't know much about that code, I would greatly disagree that they place their cities well. (I don't know though its possible that Koshling has improved things there and now they aren't loving putting cities one tile in from the coast, one tile away from a river, and spaced out as if the fat square had a two tile radius...)

As I said, I usually prefer to destroy the enemy and rebuild the land from scratch rather than accept the overall impeded ultimate potential thanks to the horrible ways they choose to layout their nation. Its just not worth the developed city usually.

Having two cities being able to work the same resource plot is often an advantage in C2C.

Also, if you weren't around for the earlier ears you just have to live with the "bad" choices your predecessors made.:mischief:

Having two cities being able to work the same resource plot is often an advantage in C2C.

Also, if you weren't around for the earlier ears you just have to live with the "bad" choices your predecessors made.:mischief:

If it should NOT be that way, how to fix?

While I don't know much about that code, I would greatly disagree that they place their cities well. (I don't know though its possible that Koshling has improved things there and now they aren't loving putting cities one tile in from the coast, one tile away from a river, and spaced out as if the fat square had a two tile radius...)

As I said, I usually prefer to destroy the enemy and rebuild the land from scratch rather than accept the overall impeded ultimate potential thanks to the horrible ways they choose to layout their nation. Its just not worth the developed city usually.

Well if you see the AI in the process of making those 'bad' choices please post something for Koshling to look at. But in my game, which was started with more or less V27 AI it has been quite good at placing cities in good spots if good spots exist. If good spots don't exist or if they are in contested area then problems can occur, but that won't be an issue here as they don't need to worry about starting cities being seized by enemies during generation.