Maniac
Apolyton Sage
Thanks. For some reason so far I have never been able to get Zakharov to trade excessively with me, so I haven't experienced too good relationships with him yet. I can probably tell more when it happens to me once too.
XML tags for the Planetfall Leaders
- Thread starter Pfeffersack
- Start date
WarKirby
Arty person
I think Zakharov should be more willing to trade techs in general, especially if you have techs to offer in return. His personality is single minded pursuit of knowledge, and he should happily give anything possible to get his hands on previously unknown data.
Also, the main weakness of the university was that they carelessly share knowledge, giving them a penalty to Probe, and making them easier to steal from.
Also, the main weakness of the university was that they carelessly share knowledge, giving them a penalty to Probe, and making them easier to steal from.
Pfeffersack
Deity
Indeed, there is no difference between the leaders in Planetfall in this regard - Maniac prefers to have all the AI play in this critical area to the best of their abilities (and as much as I like the idea of role playing...I'm very convinced that any change here would tip the fragile balance - I'm currently quite happy, that there is no clear pattern that some factions always thrive, while others always oose - strongly in favour of Zhakarov):
Maniac said:
Especially lowering the attitude treshold for allowing tech trade with Zhak would cause this. Making him more willing to trade his own monopoly techs might work better, but I never encounter it as a huge obstacle in Planetfall anyway - so we would probably have to increase it for everyone else to create a real difference...
He gets 20% less ESP because of the governors office; also he has the lowest weighting for investing in ESP via the slider.
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
For the record, Zakharov is now willing to trade tech one attitude level lower (cautious?) than the rest. Other way around, if my changes are working, all other factions should also be willing to trade with Zak at Cautious instead of the level higher (Pleased?).
Re the German civforum thread btw, don't you like to have the screenshots displayed as thumbnails instead of the almost full-sized image?
Re the German civforum thread btw, don't you like to have the screenshots displayed as thumbnails instead of the almost full-sized image?
The thumbnails are just not activated in our system (i guess...).
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
. I even didn't know, that this works.
Pfeffersack
Deity
I have done that now and also added the screenshots from the older patches.
I personally prefer larger images, too and clicking each one and waiting a few seconds until it opens is not really comfortable...but I agree that it is still better then someone capitulating in the progress of opening the entire thread and missing out Planetfall because of that...
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
Because of the SHAM modcomp, I now see there's always a huge -6 relationship penalty between Santiago and Morgan. This is mainly caused by the iBasePeaceWeight value, which apparently besides the chance for declaring war/peace directly affects relations as well. I was thinking it would be better to remove the attitude effect of this value.
The way iWarmongerRespect works also simply causes a +1 relationship boost between everyone except with Zakharov and with Morgan. I'd suggest to set this value to 0 for everyone.
The full value of iWorseRankDifferenceAttitudeChange and iBetterRankDifferenceAttitudeChange is only given in situations where one player is #1 and the other one is last. Otherwise a fraction is used. The consequence is those values practically never come into effect. As a test I'd suggest to double these values.
Why was Zakharov given a iBetterRankDifferenceAttitudeChange of -1 by the way? A positive value of +1 (or after doubling +2) seems more apt to me: just like Morgan he'd probably be willing to suck up to whoever is most powerful, as long as that means he can continue his research unbothered.
Thoughts?
The way iWarmongerRespect works also simply causes a +1 relationship boost between everyone except with Zakharov and with Morgan. I'd suggest to set this value to 0 for everyone.
The full value of iWorseRankDifferenceAttitudeChange and iBetterRankDifferenceAttitudeChange is only given in situations where one player is #1 and the other one is last. Otherwise a fraction is used. The consequence is those values practically never come into effect. As a test I'd suggest to double these values.
Why was Zakharov given a iBetterRankDifferenceAttitudeChange of -1 by the way? A positive value of +1 (or after doubling +2) seems more apt to me: just like Morgan he'd probably be willing to suck up to whoever is most powerful, as long as that means he can continue his research unbothered.
Thoughts?
Pfeffersack
Deity
I tried to picture the varying leaning of the leaders towards aggressive behaviour with this variable, using the usual Civ4 settings as a guideline. I don't know if setting this to 0 has any negative sideeffects (you mention the impact on war declaration decisions) - Civ4 has 0 only for the most serious warmongers. Also more variation could be produced by using iPeaceWeightRand more.
However, I agree that for the moment testing this with 0 is the best idea, as I have no clear vision how to improve the current situation. Should go iPeaceWeightRand then to 0 as well or stay at the default 3 from Civ4?
My attempt here was to carry the idea of "warmonger" respect over from Civ4, but beside I realized now how poor my implementation was, I'm also not sure aynmore if that concept has a place in Planetfall at all - do Santiago and Yang really like each other, just because they like war? Sometimes, but then likely because they share common goals, which seem to be then a better way to model a relation boost.
Sounds good
My thought behind this was to create rivalry between him and someone else having a higher score (which likely means superior tech). But again, your explanation makes probably more sense and adds better to his character - he will probably not go to war against that stronger rival anyway...instead he will try to trade techs, sell them around and try to catch up that way. So no need for worse relations.
I will make the changes then - just specify further for 1), what should be done.
Edit: BTW, when fiddling with the leaderheads again...should be anything done in regard to the Yang AI ?
His 30% are still less the Civ4 40% for warmongers like Shaka, who rely usually on tons of units to win their wars. I'm not sure about the combat odds, I haven't specifically seen a problem here so far, so I would wait with that until it comes up as a problem. But the small number of Hive units in my Monarch game alarmed me.
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
I wasn't thinking of changing the values in XML. Rather I would remove the effect of this value on AI attitudes inside the SDK.
I wouldn't draw conclusions based on one game. With me Yang has always been and still is one of the most consistent performing factions. In my latest game he had the biggest army.
It would be wise for him to build more infantry units, but I'm not sure what's the best way to do that. Just increasing the percentage of production he spends on military may not be a good solution: it might cause him to build more of everything instead of just more infantry.
Pfeffersack
Deity
Have you any special reason in mind why you would prefer an SDK change - I thought the golden rule of modding is to do in XML, what is possible there
Isn't anything coded outside of the XML slowing down everything e.g.? The leaderheads.xml just has only flavor for AIunittypes so far, but maybe it is also possible to add flavor to certain unitclasses?
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
Because (unless I didn't look right) that value also affects the probability of declaring war and peace in general.
Yeah that is an option. I think Test of Time included something like that.
Pfeffersack
Deity
I runned into an issue with diplomatic bonus for voting - Miriam voted in my current game constantly for Lal, giving her a +18 in his attitude. That's a bit too much. I had set the bonus for voting for him to 3, so that means she has accumulated this 6 times net. There is randomness in the wear-off factor as far as I know, but as voting behaviour is only something counting for 10 turns anyway, which is then subject to a new decison, it would make sense to set the wear-off to 10 turns as well (currently 20).
The other leaders values are BTW:
Deidre -250/250
Miriam -250/250
Morgan -200/200
Santiago -100/100
Yang -100/100
Zhakarov -200/200
The +/- 50 extra for Deidre and Miriam don't make a lot of sense the more I think about them (was my attempt to reflect their strong ideologies, but in fact council votes don't have to anything with that and they also add confusion - because the 1st, 3rd,... votes will cause a change by +/-2 always, the 2nd,4th,...then one by 3)
So I would revert them back to +/- 200, which would also make Lal more unique again.
The other leaders values are BTW:
Deidre -250/250
Miriam -250/250
Morgan -200/200
Santiago -100/100
Yang -100/100
Zhakarov -200/200
The +/- 50 extra for Deidre and Miriam don't make a lot of sense the more I think about them (was my attempt to reflect their strong ideologies, but in fact council votes don't have to anything with that and they also add confusion - because the 1st, 3rd,... votes will cause a change by +/-2 always, the 2nd,4th,...then one by 3)
So I would revert them back to +/- 200, which would also make Lal more unique again.
Attachments
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
Changing Miriam and Deirdre seems fine with me.
I'd wait a bit with changing the memory length. Such matters are also influenced by the number of council proposals, and the frequency of voting. That may change in the future.
Wouldn't reducing the memory length in fact make the influence of this attitude modifier less than vanilla?
I'd wait a bit with changing the memory length. Such matters are also influenced by the number of council proposals, and the frequency of voting. That may change in the future.
Wouldn't reducing the memory length in fact make the influence of this attitude modifier less than vanilla?
Pfeffersack
Deity
Yes, it would (which I think would make sense and could be compensated -if desired- by a stronger change in attitude). But you have a point with depedency on council votes and council intervals - in the said game above one diplomatic victory election followed another. That is not uncommon im Planetfall (I already posted about lack of variety in council votes), but not guranteed to be that way in every game.
--------
I have done the discussed changes (except the ones to the peace modifiers you want to disable with the SDK):
Pfeffersack
Deity
I noticed that my modded leaderhead.xml causes errors when loading my save, so I will have to look into it first 
Pfeffersack
Deity
Now it should work...
Pfeffersack
Deity
I hate to say it, but it looks like none of the values in iWorseRankDifferenceAttitude and iBetterRankDifferenceAttitude does what I expected it to do. Another problem is that the modifiers which show up in game are in two cases misleading by giving out a wrong (=opposite) reason, why you are liked/hated by someone
I experimented with all 4 possible cases and use the worldbuilder to create situations where they show up:
iWorseRankDifferenceAttitude with a positive number:
---> causes liking someone because of your own score being lower then his or hers
In game-description for a positive modifier: "We have a higher score then you!" ---> that's just plain wrong, because the modifier would never show up in that case, it shows up if your score islow.
iWorseRankDifferenceAttitude with a negative number:
---> causes hating someone because of your own score being lower then his or hers
In game-description for the negative modifier: "You have a higher score than us!" ---> fine
iBetterRankDifferenceAttitude with a positive number:
---> causes liking someone because of your own score being higher then his or hers
In game-description for the positive modifier: "We have a higher score then you!" ---> fine
iBetterRankDifferenceAttitude with a negative number:
---> causes hating someone because of your own score being higher then his or hers
In game-description for a negative modifier: "You have a higher score then us" ---> that's just plain wrong, because the modifier would never show up in that case, it shows up if your score is superior.
Not sure if something can be done about the wrong labeled modifiers (the problem is BTW already present in standard BTS because all 4 cases are used; it just never got discovered because the modifiers are hidden normally) but I will uload a corrected LH file soon.
I experimented with all 4 possible cases and use the worldbuilder to create situations where they show up:
iWorseRankDifferenceAttitude with a positive number:
---> causes liking someone because of your own score being lower then his or hers
In game-description for a positive modifier: "We have a higher score then you!" ---> that's just plain wrong, because the modifier would never show up in that case, it shows up if your score islow.
iWorseRankDifferenceAttitude with a negative number:
---> causes hating someone because of your own score being lower then his or hers
In game-description for the negative modifier: "You have a higher score than us!" ---> fine
iBetterRankDifferenceAttitude with a positive number:
---> causes liking someone because of your own score being higher then his or hers
In game-description for the positive modifier: "We have a higher score then you!" ---> fine
iBetterRankDifferenceAttitude with a negative number:
---> causes hating someone because of your own score being higher then his or hers
In game-description for a negative modifier: "You have a higher score then us" ---> that's just plain wrong, because the modifier would never show up in that case, it shows up if your score is superior.
Not sure if something can be done about the wrong labeled modifiers (the problem is BTW already present in standard BTS because all 4 cases are used; it just never got discovered because the modifiers are hidden normally) but I will uload a corrected LH file soon.
