Deliverator
Graphical Hackificator
Not sure what you mean here. Groundwater is the bonus that you build wells on - no Groundwater, no wells. It is just the same as all the other bonus resources, Crystal, Cereal, etc.
The Spice Thread
- Thread starter Deliverator
- Start date
Not sure what you mean here. Groundwater is the bonus that you build wells on - no Groundwater, no wells. It is just the same as all the other bonus resources, Crystal, Cereal, etc.
I think, he means, that it yields no "overall-city-bonus" such as dattes or caladanian wine. Maybe he only want's to remove it from the dipl-screen... but I suppose, that isn't possible.
davidlallen
Deity
I will put that into 1.6.4, but it will be hard to test how much difference it makes.
EDIT: I left the simple resources like burro weed, etc, at 0 to match vanilla. Also we should set values for the offworld trade resources.
Sapho, Semuta, Wine, Slig, Opafire, Soostone, Pundi Rice = 5. These are more valuable than simple resources, but not strategic.
Sardaukar, Sisterhood, Water Debt, Thinking Machines, Ginaz = 10. These give special units so they should have more value.
I propose to let Ginaz at 5... or set the rest on 15 (although that might be too much), because first four are "personal" ressources, last could be available for everybody. Furthermore, Ginaz can only be used for one unit, while the others (excluding sisterhood?) give several "bonus-options".
Also don't know, if maybe the happy-ress should be higher than health-ress, as -1 health means -1 water, -1 happy means -1 worker... but that's just a feeling
Greetz, Hived!
P.S.: Looking forward for 1.6.4
davidlallen
Deity
A little while back somebody suggested that Ginaz Training should unlock a line of powerful melee promotions. I would like to do that, but it takes some work. For now I will leave the weight at 10.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes, this is what I meant. At the moment, there is a groundwater terrain bonus, and a groundwater strategic resource. The terrain bonus works fine. You build wells on it, and it increases tile yields. Building wells on the groundwater terrain bonus does NOT provide the groundwater strategic resource.
But the groundwater strategic resource still shows up in diplomacy because the AI builds cities on groundwater bonus tiles, and cities on a bonus give that resource even without an improvement.
Also, this could be part of the problem for AI's building cities on top of groundwater terrain bonus; the resource has a high value, so the AI wants to build on top of it in order to capture that resource.
Can we not leave the terrain bonus as is without removing the strategic resource?
Slvynn
Duke Vector fon Pixel
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 2,073
Why just not to make Bonuses from Groundwater make stacking with city tile. I mean that cioty tile will act as well, and if there is Desert ingeneering researched that will be 6 water tile. For me it does not make a lot of sense and also solves issues. City on fresh water should grow faster, a lot. It wont be upgrading , stuck on lvl 1 improvement, but thats good , and enough.
Also spice anyways eed boost. That will help for sure with terraforming victory being too easy.
Also spice anyways eed boost. That will help for sure with terraforming victory being too easy.
Deliverator
Graphical Hackificator
There is only one kind of bonus. There is only a single entry for Groundwater in the bonus XML - not a separate terrain bonus and strategic resource.
As far as I know any connected bonus is available for diplomatic trade. So, the reason Groundwater isn't normally is available for trade is that something somewhere (that I haven't figured out) is preventing the bonus from being connected to cities when wells are built on it. Clearly, a city built on Groundwater is automatically connected with it which is why the AI has it sometimes. This is easy to check if you WB a city onto Groundwater.
Ahriman
Tyrant
To clarify; can't we have a Groundwater tile feature without needing a groundwater resource?
For example, in Planetfall there are nutrient, energy and mineral resources that give tile bonuses without creating a resource; this is what we want here.
I assume its just that the Well xmls don't provide the resource. For example, in vanilla, suppose you had a hill tile with iron resource. You could build a mine on it, which would provide the iron resource, or you could build a windmill on it, which would not. Wells are just like windmills, no?
The difference being, somehow the groundwater resource doesn't even say "provides groundwater (requires well)" in-game.
For example, in Planetfall there are nutrient, energy and mineral resources that give tile bonuses without creating a resource; this is what we want here.
I assume its just that the Well xmls don't provide the resource. For example, in vanilla, suppose you had a hill tile with iron resource. You could build a mine on it, which would provide the iron resource, or you could build a windmill on it, which would not. Wells are just like windmills, no?
The difference being, somehow the groundwater resource doesn't even say "provides groundwater (requires well)" in-game.
davidlallen
Deity
Interesting, in the previous discussion we have decided the AI weight for groundwater should be very high. Perhaps that is not the right decision. Should it be 0 instead of 25? I don't believe there is any direct way to prevent the AI from trading groundwater; obviously it is less likely with a weight of 0. Also, from a long time back, we have set the iAIObjective flag for this resource. It may be interesting to try removing that. The groundwater resource is such an obvious source of food that I believe the AI will pursue it anyway.
Deliverator
Graphical Hackificator
@david: Do you have any idea why when a well is built on groundwater it doesn't connect to a city, whereas other bonuses such as baradye are connected when you build an insect farm? I couldn't figure it out.
Ahriman is proposing that Groundwater should never available for diplo trade which would make the AI trade weight irrelevant. Trouble is, I don't know if this is possible. The only thing that makes it rare at the moment is that the AI has to have a city on top of Groundwater to have it connected.
Ahriman is proposing that Groundwater should never available for diplo trade which would make the AI trade weight irrelevant. Trouble is, I don't know if this is possible. The only thing that makes it rare at the moment is that the AI has to have a city on top of Groundwater to have it connected.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I suspect 0 will be better than 25.
There are potential problems either way; with a low value, the AI might try to trade real resources away to get it. With a high value, they might be able to trade it away for real resources.
The latter problem is probably worse than the former.
What happens if you enter -1? Will this stop the AI from ever trading it?
But the problem will go away by itself if we can stop the AI founding cities on groundwater tiles.
davidlallen
Deity
I can make the behavior of groundwater match the behavior of other resources, but I don't know how to switch it off. In the improvementinfos file, there is a field "bBonusTrade". Apparently, when you build an improvement on a bonus, this flag controls whether it becomes tradeable. However, when you build a city on a bonus, there is no such flag and it always becomes tradeable.
For an unknown reason, the well improvements are the only ones which have this flag set to false. This exactly explains the behavior we are seeing; it is only tradeable if a city is built on groundwater, not if a well is built on groundwater.
By setting this flag to true, I can make groundwater tradeable when a well is built. This way the groundwater resource will work the same as other resources.
We need to have something which marks where wells can be built; this is what resources are for. So we cannot remove it, and it is not somehow "left over" from an earlier implementation. If we make the AIObjective flag 0, and the trade weight 0, it will still show up as tradeable but the AI won't have much interest in it. I think this is the best we can do.
For an unknown reason, the well improvements are the only ones which have this flag set to false. This exactly explains the behavior we are seeing; it is only tradeable if a city is built on groundwater, not if a well is built on groundwater.
By setting this flag to true, I can make groundwater tradeable when a well is built. This way the groundwater resource will work the same as other resources.
We need to have something which marks where wells can be built; this is what resources are for. So we cannot remove it, and it is not somehow "left over" from an earlier implementation. If we make the AIObjective flag 0, and the trade weight 0, it will still show up as tradeable but the AI won't have much interest in it. I think this is the best we can do.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Ok, but I don't think this is something we want to do: I think groundwater works better as tile bonus only.
Another thought: does the AI get groundwater when it builds forts on them? As it often does.
Understood.
Along with changes to city founding, this should be fine.
davidlallen
Deity
This is because of the iAIObjective flag. This forces the AI to have high interest in colonizing nearby and fortifying all instances of these resources, like oil in vanilla. I would like to remove this flag. I "assume" the AI will still be interested enough in groundwater because of all the food bonuses, but it requires some testing. I have entered it into the issues spreadsheet.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I have no problem with the AI building forts on resources that are not within its BFCs. This is actually good behavior; it expands AI culture and gives them resources.
Its just that groundwater is an exception.
Also, arguably forts on groundwater should provide fresh water access. Sometimes there is groundwater not in any city BFC, but the tile should still provide water for cottage bonus and terraforming.
What about "restricting" to found on groundwater? Make it just as Mesa to an "unsettlable" tile. That way AI also doesn't throw away the bonus it yields.
...but let me have a guess: Only terrains can be declared "unsettlable", not ressources?!
Greetz, Hived.
...but let me have a guess: Only terrains can be declared "unsettlable", not ressources?!
Greetz, Hived.
davidlallen
Deity
When I release 1.6.4, it will have a new way to find starting locations for civs. This will never place a starting city on any kind of bonus. In the future, I will add the same code into the AI settler location choices. Then AI cities will never be placed on bonuses. For the human player, do we really want to *prevent* it?
Great, that should solve the "tradable groundwater" problem.
IMO human players should be allowed, to settle those terrains. Giving ground water an AI-trade-value of 0 would also prevent abuse of "innocent" AI by trading it for really worthy ressources.
Greetz, Hived.
IMO human players should be allowed, to settle those terrains. Giving ground water an AI-trade-value of 0 would also prevent abuse of "innocent" AI by trading it for really worthy ressources.
Greetz, Hived.
Similar threads
