Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Well that's what I mean... tweak the code so it won't upgrade them into a Farmscraper unless the Farmscraper supports those resources. Should be easily accomplished actually.
Guide to The C2C Alternative Improvement Upgrade Mechanism
- Thread starter Thunderbrd
- Start date
Well that's what I mean... tweak the code so it won't upgrade them into a Farmscraper unless the Farmscraper supports those resources. Should be easily accomplished actually.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
At the time you can build FarmScrapers, map resources don't play a role at all IMO. In a House were you easily can controll everything: moisture, light, temperature, nutritions of the soil... What would stop you from buying some seeds and build wine in Greenland? Apples in the Sahara?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Actually this is one reason I want them all to lead to the Farmscraper. Wherever you put a Farmscraper I'll be making it able to very quickly find a new resource.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Not a bad idea. Tiles need to be an alternative all the time, not only in the first half of the game.
I have a Special Stone workshop on a marble resource that has been worked by a nearby city for quite some time. It does not upgrade to Quarry (which is an option for a worker there); when I hover my mouse over it, I dont have any message telling me "X turns to upgrade".
Is it intended?
Is it intended?
What I was working on was a better trade route calculation. While that was not completed, what exists as code is a trade aura / trade network calculation. It calculates what plots are trade dominated by what city and which cities are fully trade dominated by other cities. That depends on trade importance of a city and distances that depend on terrain/features/routes. You can look what it calculates by activating CALCULATE_TRADE_AURAS in A_New_Dawn_GlobalDefines.xml. End the turn and then look at the result by zooming out to the globe and then choosing the right thing to display.
It has no game play effect at the moment.
This is the thread with some of the discussions about it:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=490585
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Probably not but it will be fixed (possibly by the end of the day here). I'm still putting together the xml tweaks to adapt to this system.
I was indeed referring to this but I won't be working on furthering its development - it's a rabbit trail for me that would lead me far off my self assigned track for now. I figured that what you were doing there might be able to eventually accomplish what he was referring to was all.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
@DH: this would be another one to add a link to the modder's docs on.
I'm about to have a major update to it here soon as well.
I'm about to have a major update to it here soon as well.
I finally got a chance to look over the changes this put into improvementInfos and BonusInfos as compared to the work I did previously.
All the new tags for upgrade alternatives and the, adjustments to upgrade time, pillage costs, upgrade costs and so on are fine. Thanks for the hard work there.
However, all of the bonus yield changes you did to ImprovementInfo BonusStructs and the yields in BonusInfo serious broke and disrupted the net yield balances I had aimed for in my prior changes.
The first hting I notices is that all the yeilds are significantly increase in both ImprovementInfos and BonusInfos. Is there a particular specific reason for this?, because it just seems to in the MOAR yields direction.
When I worked on the BonusStruct yeilds in improvements I carefully took note of what the base yields in BonusInfo had been. There were several high value BonusInfo yields for specific resources compared to other resources of a similar types. I considered this in many cases by letting the sum total of the BonusStructs for those more valuable resources be less than those of the lesser bonus at equal improvement points. This allowed those higher yield resources which were a nice advantage in the beginning to even back out over time as the other lesser bonus caught up via improvements. This balance no longer seems to exist with these new changes.
You have added Bonus validty and BonusStruct Yields to the bonuses under the WoodGatherer to LumberMill to Hybrid Forest chain of improvements, where as they were Zero before and not considered valid.
This was intentional. The only resource they had bonus struct was so that Flora resources normally associated with the Orchard and Plantation chain of improvement actually had a chance to randomly spawn. They cannot spawn under the Orchard and Plantation chain because those chains require the resource to already be in existence to build on. By making those renounces valid on the Lumbermill chain AND granting them bonus Yields which rival the yield son the Orchard and Plantation chains you have effectively made the Orchard and Plantation chain of improvements have very little purpose.
This is not a criticism but a clarification of intent and tag usage
The are only two time an improvement needs to have a prereq tech defined. One reason is when you want to have two techs defined as a prereq for a given improvment. You define one tech as a prereq at the ImprovementInfo level, and the other Tech and the BulidInfo level. Otherwise the prereq tech only needs to be defined at the BuildInfo level. The other time you need to define a prereq tech at the ImprovementInfo level is when that improvement is capable of being upgraded into by another improvement. Granted that was part of this set of changes so that was expected, also the choice for some of those techs of some of those improvements seem wrong. The two I explicitly noticed were Beacon, Treefarm and Hybrid Forest. Beacon went from Masonry to Sailing, I think it should have stayed at masonry because you are in effect building a brick/stone structure.
Treefarms (which is essentially the concept of managed forestry) has been around since the early industrial age. Wildlife Conservation is more fitting for that which is what it had originaly rather than the much later Environmental Economics you changed it to. Same goes for Hybrid forest unless your intent was to Really push it into the very late game by using planatary economics rather than environmental economics which it had beforehand.
BonusStructs yields for Veritcal Farms were set at zero on purpose. While I had also set them to have no spawn on purpose because I figured by that point in the gave everything has pretty much been discovered and you already have great farmers to add more resources if you wanted them. I don't keep much if the spawns are kept however the bonus yields being zero were intentional.
The Vertical farm was the final equalizer of the farm based resources. (If you want to expand what resources it covers that fine, but give those the same treatment) The base value of the yields for vertical farm more than covered that combination of the BonusInfo yields and Farm BonusStruct yields such that upgrading to a Vertical Farm was still the better choice in all cases under all types of resources. By the time you get to Vertical Farms the minor variation yields differences among bonuses is largely meanings less. After all already have significant GMO crops by that point, and can pretty much custom make everything you grow in their to be completely optimized.
There are more things I can point out but I don't have the time. In general I'd recommend going back to the original BonsuInfo and BonusStruct yield values that I had set them to. Or at least go back and rebalance them so that their final cumulative values occur at a predictable and reasonable rate as the game progress and as more advanced improvements get built.
All the new tags for upgrade alternatives and the, adjustments to upgrade time, pillage costs, upgrade costs and so on are fine. Thanks for the hard work there.
However, all of the bonus yield changes you did to ImprovementInfo BonusStructs and the yields in BonusInfo serious broke and disrupted the net yield balances I had aimed for in my prior changes.
The first hting I notices is that all the yeilds are significantly increase in both ImprovementInfos and BonusInfos. Is there a particular specific reason for this?, because it just seems to in the MOAR yields direction.
When I worked on the BonusStruct yeilds in improvements I carefully took note of what the base yields in BonusInfo had been. There were several high value BonusInfo yields for specific resources compared to other resources of a similar types. I considered this in many cases by letting the sum total of the BonusStructs for those more valuable resources be less than those of the lesser bonus at equal improvement points. This allowed those higher yield resources which were a nice advantage in the beginning to even back out over time as the other lesser bonus caught up via improvements. This balance no longer seems to exist with these new changes.
You have added Bonus validty and BonusStruct Yields to the bonuses under the WoodGatherer to LumberMill to Hybrid Forest chain of improvements, where as they were Zero before and not considered valid.
This was intentional. The only resource they had bonus struct was so that Flora resources normally associated with the Orchard and Plantation chain of improvement actually had a chance to randomly spawn. They cannot spawn under the Orchard and Plantation chain because those chains require the resource to already be in existence to build on. By making those renounces valid on the Lumbermill chain AND granting them bonus Yields which rival the yield son the Orchard and Plantation chains you have effectively made the Orchard and Plantation chain of improvements have very little purpose.
This is not a criticism but a clarification of intent and tag usage
The are only two time an improvement needs to have a prereq tech defined. One reason is when you want to have two techs defined as a prereq for a given improvment. You define one tech as a prereq at the ImprovementInfo level, and the other Tech and the BulidInfo level. Otherwise the prereq tech only needs to be defined at the BuildInfo level. The other time you need to define a prereq tech at the ImprovementInfo level is when that improvement is capable of being upgraded into by another improvement. Granted that was part of this set of changes so that was expected, also the choice for some of those techs of some of those improvements seem wrong. The two I explicitly noticed were Beacon, Treefarm and Hybrid Forest. Beacon went from Masonry to Sailing, I think it should have stayed at masonry because you are in effect building a brick/stone structure.
Treefarms (which is essentially the concept of managed forestry) has been around since the early industrial age. Wildlife Conservation is more fitting for that which is what it had originaly rather than the much later Environmental Economics you changed it to. Same goes for Hybrid forest unless your intent was to Really push it into the very late game by using planatary economics rather than environmental economics which it had beforehand.
BonusStructs yields for Veritcal Farms were set at zero on purpose. While I had also set them to have no spawn on purpose because I figured by that point in the gave everything has pretty much been discovered and you already have great farmers to add more resources if you wanted them. I don't keep much if the spawns are kept however the bonus yields being zero were intentional.
The Vertical farm was the final equalizer of the farm based resources. (If you want to expand what resources it covers that fine, but give those the same treatment) The base value of the yields for vertical farm more than covered that combination of the BonusInfo yields and Farm BonusStruct yields such that upgrading to a Vertical Farm was still the better choice in all cases under all types of resources. By the time you get to Vertical Farms the minor variation yields differences among bonuses is largely meanings less. After all already have significant GMO crops by that point, and can pretty much custom make everything you grow in their to be completely optimized.
There are more things I can point out but I don't have the time. In general I'd recommend going back to the original BonsuInfo and BonusStruct yield values that I had set them to. Or at least go back and rebalance them so that their final cumulative values occur at a predictable and reasonable rate as the game progress and as more advanced improvements get built.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
There's a lot of commentary there to comment on and I'm about to step out so I'll return to say more in a bit.
The first thing I wanted to ensure was that all resources were equivalent in value. I ran across a scenario in testing where a donkey was far superior to a horse -bleaugh! That got me looking and finding out that the base value of the resources were completely irrational. It ranged from 1 total yield to 4 and what I figured should be the best resources were the ones at a mere 1 total yield value.
So, while I don't think I've fully audited the sea resources, for the rest I've taken all resources and given them a total of 3 yield overall. This does enhance them and add a little value across the board in many cases but the standard of 3 gives working room to vary and differentiate significantly enough (since there are 3 yields this allows there to be 1 apiece if that resource seemed to have a balance across the 3.)
Then looking at the upgrade chains I attempted (though there may be a few inaccuracies) to make sure all bonuses those improvements gave access to would enhance those bonuses by the same total again. As they go upwards their overall increases in given amounts enhance as well. I TRIED to base the amount somewhat on the eras the improvements would come into play.
The base and tech factors were something I'd have to fully spreadsheet out EVERYTHING down to a very exacting degree to determine the values of but it appeared the tech increases would not exceed the increases to the base amounts of the improvements themselves so should always remain improving if upgrading.
There are a few resources that are accessible by more than one type of improvement upgrade chain. In so doing they generally are handled a little differently on either one. For example, if you want to get more of the production from resin (glue) than gold you can use the lumber improvement pathways to do so but if you're wanting to focus more on the gold you can use the plant gathering pathway to do so.
I won't argue that what I've done is even necessarily perfect for my own intentions but I'm sharing the intentions behind the adjustments you're apt to point out are in contradiction to previous methods.
The overall balance of one improvement to the next between each other at a given tech age is still probably needing quite a bit of evaluation to make sure each has its own role and that one role is not superior to another. Most of the Mill buildings were greatly inferior to mines and farms and probably still are even though I did enhance them significantly.
How strong they all are is less important at the moment, imo, than that they are balanced against each other. THEN we can selectively inject asymmetry, where one resource might NOT be as good as another, but in what ways being very intentional rather than haphazard which issues like the basics of a Donkey offering 4 base yields and a Horse offering 1 were causing.
So again, yes, a little imperfect but I think I've been able to share insights into what I was thinking.
The first thing I wanted to ensure was that all resources were equivalent in value. I ran across a scenario in testing where a donkey was far superior to a horse -bleaugh! That got me looking and finding out that the base value of the resources were completely irrational. It ranged from 1 total yield to 4 and what I figured should be the best resources were the ones at a mere 1 total yield value.
So, while I don't think I've fully audited the sea resources, for the rest I've taken all resources and given them a total of 3 yield overall. This does enhance them and add a little value across the board in many cases but the standard of 3 gives working room to vary and differentiate significantly enough (since there are 3 yields this allows there to be 1 apiece if that resource seemed to have a balance across the 3.)
Then looking at the upgrade chains I attempted (though there may be a few inaccuracies) to make sure all bonuses those improvements gave access to would enhance those bonuses by the same total again. As they go upwards their overall increases in given amounts enhance as well. I TRIED to base the amount somewhat on the eras the improvements would come into play.
The base and tech factors were something I'd have to fully spreadsheet out EVERYTHING down to a very exacting degree to determine the values of but it appeared the tech increases would not exceed the increases to the base amounts of the improvements themselves so should always remain improving if upgrading.
There are a few resources that are accessible by more than one type of improvement upgrade chain. In so doing they generally are handled a little differently on either one. For example, if you want to get more of the production from resin (glue) than gold you can use the lumber improvement pathways to do so but if you're wanting to focus more on the gold you can use the plant gathering pathway to do so.
I won't argue that what I've done is even necessarily perfect for my own intentions but I'm sharing the intentions behind the adjustments you're apt to point out are in contradiction to previous methods.
The overall balance of one improvement to the next between each other at a given tech age is still probably needing quite a bit of evaluation to make sure each has its own role and that one role is not superior to another. Most of the Mill buildings were greatly inferior to mines and farms and probably still are even though I did enhance them significantly.
How strong they all are is less important at the moment, imo, than that they are balanced against each other. THEN we can selectively inject asymmetry, where one resource might NOT be as good as another, but in what ways being very intentional rather than haphazard which issues like the basics of a Donkey offering 4 base yields and a Horse offering 1 were causing.
So again, yes, a little imperfect but I think I've been able to share insights into what I was thinking.
I noticed the odd imbalanced bonus yeilds at the bonusInfo levels also, so it wasn't me who set them up like that. However I was not sure of the intent behind it so when I did my changes I left the majority of the BonusInfo yield vaues as they were and planned the improvements out with those values in mind. I don't care if those the get rebalanced or reduced, but when I looked like it it only seemed like all of them went up in yield, excessively.
As for reasons that I could guess as to why the BonusInfo yields were initially so disparate, might have been something to do with which ones are the easiest to gather and use by a prehistoric group of people. Wild fruits and nuts, the larger the better, would have more 'value' to a pre-agricultural society than grains (which still need to be domesticated) This might have been why such things had higher yields. The same could hold for easier to hunt animals, or anything that is easy to collect and gather with little effort or refinement needed.
Obviously as tech marches onward the opposite might come to be the case, with grain becoming "better" than some fruit and the like post agriculture.
Balanced and/or appropriate yield distributions at the bonusInfo level (from a prehistoric POV) should be achieved first. Then adjust base BonusStruct yields per class of improvement types.
The pattern I typically tried to follow was +1 total yield gains at first upgrade (fruit/plant/stone gatherers) followed by a +2 total yield gain (pickers, etc) then +4, +6 and so on as the improvement upgraded, each with variations to rebalance the original BonusInfo Yields relative to the total gotten at a later era, so that the "best" resources might even or or even reverse in some cases over the eras.
Some resource though, as their importance diminished, would stop gaining yield increases. For example, Amber had decreasing importance bast the classical era when compared to precious metals and gems, so there is not a compelling argument to keep increasing its yields all the way up to Core Mine. Similar arguments can be made for other resources.
As for reasons that I could guess as to why the BonusInfo yields were initially so disparate, might have been something to do with which ones are the easiest to gather and use by a prehistoric group of people. Wild fruits and nuts, the larger the better, would have more 'value' to a pre-agricultural society than grains (which still need to be domesticated) This might have been why such things had higher yields. The same could hold for easier to hunt animals, or anything that is easy to collect and gather with little effort or refinement needed.
Obviously as tech marches onward the opposite might come to be the case, with grain becoming "better" than some fruit and the like post agriculture.
Balanced and/or appropriate yield distributions at the bonusInfo level (from a prehistoric POV) should be achieved first. Then adjust base BonusStruct yields per class of improvement types.
The pattern I typically tried to follow was +1 total yield gains at first upgrade (fruit/plant/stone gatherers) followed by a +2 total yield gain (pickers, etc) then +4, +6 and so on as the improvement upgraded, each with variations to rebalance the original BonusInfo Yields relative to the total gotten at a later era, so that the "best" resources might even or or even reverse in some cases over the eras.
Some resource though, as their importance diminished, would stop gaining yield increases. For example, Amber had decreasing importance bast the classical era when compared to precious metals and gems, so there is not a compelling argument to keep increasing its yields all the way up to Core Mine. Similar arguments can be made for other resources.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
The imbalance is more likely to originate from where the resource was originally taken. I just made them work, I did not do any balancing on top of that.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I didn't blame you because I know they've been that way (irritatingly so) for a while now. I don't believe that it was an intended state of being so much as what happens when you have a number of differing modders with differing mod efforts blending into each other's works without any overseeing evaluations keeping them in harmony.
I get the arguments you're using about differing factors that may be further considered though. So I wanted first to make them all equivalent then such arguments could come in and 'tweak' the structure.
From here, what I feel we will need to do is completely map out what each bonus may offer under each accessing improvement and noting all grid x points where that can/will change.
Then we can arrange it into a chart that can be looked at with a little more visibility.
I'm not at all against making plots more powerful... at the moment (well... before my tweaks) our specialists in the later game are giving plot values a real run for their money in terms of valuations and a plot with a resource should almost always win against the value of a specialist hands down.
What I DO want to make sure of is that say, Core Mines, aren't totally overwhelming the value of other contemporary improvements.
This actually is basically exactly what I did... I just did it with a slightly different mathematical progression that made modifiers give more wiggle room for specialization of purpose to expand a bit (and to make plots a little more valuable in general). You may be able to see the patterns I used if you look close enough but I realize just looking at the xml is probably not going to be terribly helpful to true design perfection.
So... before we get into toooo much discussion further we should really map out how our plot yields (without consideration for terrain anyhow) would currently pan out at each tech x.
I think I found the bugs in the peaks improvement processings btw... so fixes there should be going in soon.
@DH: I've gotta get those fixes tested and in place before release (I thought they were working properly until today.)
meatball20
rockhound
every time I use the stack attack with multiple units against another unit(animal) there is a possiable freeze where I can only use the options and save and have to re boot the game where I lost or won a battle. The fight or fleet option might be the cause of this as well as the stack attack option in the options menu is not choosen.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Not the correct thread
. This is a very old bug from stack attack, click anywhere on the mini map and the game unfreezes.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Agree with DH - horrible thread placement.
However, as has been stated elsewhere (though I think you're new so you're forgiven) Stack Attack was broken when we got it, I briefly fixed it, then ended up breaking it again until extensive future combat reworking plans are complete and stack attack is then updated to the whole. Stack Attack requires a lot of copying what's done in the main attack sequence but its differences are subtle and insidious and it makes every change to combat tedius in the extreme to then go and update to stack attack. At the moment, I'm not entirely sure that core functioning aspects of it weren't utterly wiped out during the last attempt to update it so when I do have time to go back and fix it again I really only want to have to do it once.
Translation: Don't Use it.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
probably the best idea if you are using any of the extended combat stuff C2C has.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
So it's working without any of the other combat options then? I'd think it wouldn't be working on any setting. Or could at least have some problems now and then.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
I play with both Stack Attack options on. I get the problem about once in every 5 or so games. I do not play with ay of the combat options on not even Great Commanders.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Bump
