ExtraModMod

ExtraModMod 0.5.0-beta2 is now available.

After fixing some critical bugs which were affecting gameplay, beta2 is ready. The biggest ones are:

• The game should now be CtD free.
• Prevent a CtD when Infernals are summoned.
• Removed a CtD when determining valid puppet states leaders.
• Lairs now appear normally.

Sadly, the OOS errors discovered lately have not been fixed for this release. Now that the game is CtD free (or so I hope), I will concentrate on getting more OOS logs and try to get a solution to the remaining problems. The beta also includes few but significant features, such as an scenario adapted to ExtraModMod, some new game modes and improvements to leaders and the GUI.

This version is still a beta, so it is not the definitive 0.5.0 release. Betas provide a new version for anyone interested in testing the new features, providing feedback about them or just enjoy the new stuff early. For this beta I disabled asserts, which seemed to cause more problems than the good they did. The Testing Guide should help players in creating bug reports with better information. The full changelog of this version can be checked below:


In the first post of this thread you can find the links for downloads, wiki, Features, future plans and other useful information.

very nice! I'm pretty sure that Doviello are OP with the new savage though

After 10 multiplayer test games being run until at least turn 200, I have experienced exactly zero OOS errors. It seems that the weird, random OOS errors I was experiencing were caused by the mess that one of the CtD errors caused. As a result of this, ExtraModMod is currently (and to my knowledge) OOS free except when creating a puppet state. Contrary to what could be expected, I would appreciate testing multiplayer thoroughly even if it proves me wrong and bursts my happiness bubble

[to_xp]Gekko;13756217 said:

very nice! I'm pretty sure that Doviello are OP with the new savage though

Click to expand...

I'll play as the new Duin in our next multiplayer game. I'll let you know how it goes.

Got this error after winning with Charadon:

I guess it is related to the barbarian mistrust bar.

lfgr said:

Got this error after winning with Charadon:

...

I guess it is related to the barbarian mistrust bar.

Click to expand...

Thank you! It has been fixed.

Sorry about taking so long to answer about the Loki proposal, I've been working on a lot of stuff.

Sarmatian said:

I don't understand how anyone can't see how game-breaking Loki is. Hopefully the next few screenshots will finally convince everyone that a huge nerf is long overdue.

Click to expand...

Sarmatian said:

Hmm. Even though I've been the most vocal proponent of nerfing Loki for the last several weeks, I think this is too much.

Click to expand...

Sarmatian said:

I'm afraid that with these changes, we'll rarely if ever see Loki flip a city to Balseraph. I don't mind that, but we need to give Loki something more substantial then a near useless ability to postpone cultural victory.

Click to expand...

I thought that nerfing Loki's ability to take cities because it is game breaking was exactly the point, Sarmatian. Honestly, you changing your mind from "taking cities out is too much" to "I don't think that taking cities should be taken out completely" when you finally managed to convince me is making me very confused with your position about this issue. Now that I'm convinced about taking action (I even played games with the settings you suggested and saw how huge the issue can get), I'm going to start working on the solution I proposed. If you think that my proposal isn't good enough either, please make a detailed counter proposal on how do you think it should work, as it has been made clear that I cannot guess your opinion just by the arguments against what I write. I also think that making a proposal would be a more constructive way to continue this discussion.

Can this mod be used with pitboss without breaking the game?

I've had some python exceptions when I tried but then I added some K-mod code to \Fall from Heaven 2\Assets\python\BUG\BugInit.py after line 30 and those exceptions dissapeared:

Also, I can't see nor modify all game options and player settings on the last page of pitboss wizard because there is no scroll bar (though, I would probably be able to see all the options with high enough screen resolution.) The code for the wizard is in \Beyond the Sword\Assets\Python\PitBoss\PbWizard.py (FFH2 uses BTS file because there's no PbWizard.py file in mod folder) so that should be fixable.

What I am wondering now, would it be possible to play simultaneous turns (or at least sequential) games normally with pitboss if this is fixed?

DarkLunaPhantom said:

I've had some python exceptions when I tried but then I added some K-mod code to \Fall from Heaven 2\Assets\python\BUG\BugInit.py after line 30 and those exceptions dissapeared:

Code:

	# K-Mod. Don't use any BUG features if this is a PitBoss server.
	if CyGame().isPitbossHost():
		BugUtil.debug("BugInit - BUG disabled for PitBoss host")
		return
	# K-Mod end

Click to expand...

I have added an issue to my tracker to add that code to ExtraModMod. As seen in this post, the reasons that the author of K-mod had for adding that code are very legitimate; the pitboss server would probably end up crashing.

DarkLunaPhantom said:

Also, I can't see nor modify all game options and player settings on the last page of pitboss wizard because there is no scroll bar (though, I would probably be able to see all the options with high enough screen resolution.) The code for the wizard is in \Beyond the Sword\Assets\Python\PitBoss\PbWizard.py (FFH2 uses BTS file because there's no PbWizard.py file in mod folder) so that should be fixable.

Click to expand...

I will look into this issue too.

DarkLunaPhantom said:

What I am wondering now, would it be possible to play simultaneous turns (or at least sequential) games normally with pitboss if this is fixed?

Click to expand...

I'd say that the biggest issue with pitboss compatibility for ExtraModMod is my complete lack of knowledge about this feature until you made this post (besides that it existed). Besides looking into the issues you mentioned, I will make some tests in order to make sure that the next stable (0.5.0) supports pitboss, but until I run them I can't guarantee that it will work. Pitboss seems like a fun game mode; I would participate if someone organized an ExtraModMod game

I have searched a bit and found that some people have played pitboss successfully using Erebus in the Balance, which has a code base close to ExtraModMod's. Besides EMM's addition of extra features that shouldn't change pitboss compatibility, the biggest difference between the two mods with regard to this problem is that EMM has BUG while EitB does not, but you already gave a solution to that. Therefore, I think that it is quite likely that pitboss will work without having to fix much stuff.

EDIT: I have been checking K-mod's source code repository to dig all pitboss fixes. I was aware of K-mod's great improvements to the AI (because More Naval AI has been porting a lot of those), but I have been finding a lot of awesome improvements to usability and UI, along with fixes to crashes and OOS errors. It is an amazing work, I'll be following its development from now on

Edit: Discussion of BarbsPlus proposals has been moved to the BarbsPlus thread.

DarkLunaPhantom: I have already incorporated all of K-Mod's pitboss related bugfixes (along with a ton of other great bugfixes and UI improvements which can be checked at the repository and that I will detail in the next release post). I still need to run some actual multiplayer tests on pitboss mode in order to make sure that everything works as it should, but since it already works with a single human player I'm optimistic. The gameoption problem with the wizard requires a bit more work but this is just because the widget code it uses is kind of confusing (Thank you for pointing me to the code files, by the way. ExtraModMod now includes its own version of them). The next beta should allow pitboss games with ExtraModMod without problems. If pitboss gathers interest, I would consider merging the Mod for Pitboss Games with ExtraModMod.

Terkhen said:

I thought that nerfing Loki's ability to take cities because it is game breaking was exactly the point, Sarmatian. Honestly, you changing your mind from "taking cities out is too much" to "I don't think that taking cities should be taken out completely" when you finally managed to convince me is making me very confused with your position about this issue. Now that I'm convinced about taking action (I even played games with the settings you suggested and saw how huge the issue can get), I'm going to start working on the solution I proposed. If you think that my proposal isn't good enough either, please make a detailed counter proposal on how do you think it should work, as it has been made clear that I cannot guess your opinion just by the arguments against what I write. I also think that making a proposal would be a more constructive way to continue this discussion.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was away for a while and couldn't use my computer. The new beta version works perfectly for me so far.

Now regarding Loki:

The problem with him is that he can really screw up a game, but he can also be insignificant.
If Bals start on a continent with 3 non cultural civs, they will win the game in all probability.
If they start on a continent next to 3 cultural civs, Loki won't have almost any effect.
If they start on a Pangea, chances are warmonger leaders will attack Bals if Loki takes too much cities.

In all those cases, he has the potential to REALLY screw up a game, either by making Bals insanely strong, OR, having them overextend and provide easy cities to conquer for some warmonger. So, a lot depends on map and other settings, Bals neighbours and so on. He can be insanely useful or completely useless.

I've already mentioned my proposal - a fix that wouldn't allow Loki to take cities really early in the game. If we take away his ability to take over cities completely, we leave Bals with a practically useless hero and I don't think that's fair. Granted, they do have a quite good World Spell, but still. Let's say we take away his ability. Fine, we've done that. How do we compensate? Giving him the ability to postpone cultural victories, which never happen anyway, that can be easily countered? Too weak. I wouldn't want to go "back to the drawing board" with Loki. It would be extremely hard to balance it properly, and you would have to design him from scratch.

As I've said, the biggest issue is when he takes cities EARLY in the game. That can cripple a civ and give Bals a huge advantage. On the other hand, if Bals extend too much, it can misfire for them. How can we balance it? By not allowing Loki to take over cities really early in the game. How can it be achieved? In two ways in my opinion.

1) Moving Loki further up the tech tree, allowing everyone to build a solid base before he is unleashed. That way, he will still be able to take a couple of cities, but not enough to totally cripple one or more opponents, or to get Balseraph in a weak position. Pro of that solution - you can set it up so that Loki appears roughly at a certain point in the game, irrespective of game speed. Con - you can't use Loki's other abilities early.

2) I'll post what I've already wrote

...giving Loki the Hero promotion and giving him access to Loki only promotions (and just those, no combat or anything like that). Those promotions should be like combat promotions - ie you can only take Combat 2 if you have already taken Combat 1, and have the ability to take over cities be the last available promotion.

Click to expand...

Pro - you can use other Loki's abilities earlier. Con - those playing on longer game speeds will benefit more. If we have Loki gain promotion to take over cities at 82 XP for instance, those playing on Marathon will have more fun than those on Quick.

Either way, we don't allow Loki to screw up the entire game, either by making Bals invincible or leading them to ruin.

If you don't like any of those solutions, I would prefer your proposal to leaving it as it is. It would weaken Bals, but that is preferable to dreading will games be thrown out of whack whenever I see Bals are in the game.

I hope that I made it clearer now. Sorry if I sounded confusing earlier.

Sarmatian said:

Sorry, I was away for a while and couldn't use my computer. The new beta version works perfectly for me so far.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that. Let me know if you have any other problems.

Sarmatian said:

Now regarding Loki:

Click to expand...

I already answered to that proposal.

Delaying the city stealing problem is not a solution, as it can only lead to two things. If the opponent still can't deal with Loki ability when the ability becomes available, cities will still be easily stolen. It does not matter if the loss is not as big as before, the point is that it is still impossible to defend against the ability and therefore losing a city will still be as frustrating as it was without the proposal. If at the point at which city stealing is available the opponent can deal with it just by carrying a disciple or some other ability... why bother with having an ability so easy to avoid at all? I'd rather modify Disrupt to do something culture related that is still useful but not game breaking at any point of the game, than artificially delay the ability until it could as well not exist at all.

With leaving it as is, do you mean leaving it as it is in beta2 after I implemented my changes? My proposal is open for discussion and it can be changed if the effect is not deemed useful, but city stealing is not coming back.

Terkhen said:

Delaying the city stealing problem is not a solution, as it can only lead to two things. If the opponent still can't deal with Loki ability when the ability becomes available, cities will still be easily stolen. It does not matter if the loss is not as big as before, the point is that it is still impossible to defend against the ability and therefore losing a city will still be as frustrating as it was without the proposal. If at the point at which city stealing is available the opponent can deal with it just by carrying a disciple or some other ability... why bother with having an ability so easy to avoid at all? I'd rather modify Disrupt to do something culture related that is still useful but not game breaking at any point of the game, than artificially delay the ability until it could as well not exist at all.

Click to expand...

From my experience, AI cities after a while produce some culture, thus making themselves safe from Loki. Ideally, there would only be a couple of opportunities for Loki to do his trick, although, as you say, it would still be impossible to defend against and could be frustrating, I agree.

City stealing is the most important thing about Loki. If we take that away, he needs to be compensated. We definitely agree that city stealing is a problem, I'm just not sure how best to compensate Loki if it is taken away completely.

I have no good ideas at the moment, I'll try to think about it more.

With leaving it as is, do you mean leaving it as it is in beta2 after I implemented my changes? My proposal is open for discussion and it can be changed if the effect is not deemed useful, but city stealing is not coming back.

Click to expand...

I've only played one game in beta2 and it was without Bals. I'll play the next one as them and check out the changes, and see if I get a good idea. It might take a few days, though. I've just came back from vacation and have a lot of backlog at work.

From my singleplayer perspecitve, the biggest problem with Loki's right out city stealing is that the only reaction against it is declaring war as soon as he is near a newly founded city. I really can't think of any situation that would change that, as in situations in that I really want to avoid war against the balseraphs, they usually are smart enough to attack me anyways. At least that's my experience.
So if every player played moderately intelligent, Loki's ability would simply never be used. I think the same is true even more for multiplayer, or did anyone ever came across a situation where a city was stolen from a human player?

I think aiding in culture wars fits the overall strategy of the balseraphs far better, and also would be a much more subtile form of aggression. Still I'm not sure if anyone would allow Loki on his territory in multiplayer.

We have decided to move discussions about BarbsPlus new features to its own thread, in order to keep the discussion focused and to allow to discuss the rest of topics here. I have posted there some proposals for which we would appreciate some discussion and feedback, you can find them here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13776250#post13776250

We will be waiting for your comments there

Hello Terkhen.

- You recently took some modifications of EitB to EMM. For exemple, you have taken the halving of gold needed to the Khazard dwarven vault.

- But I don't well understand what did you decided to take from them. For example, in this full list of EitB modifications, do you have, generally, all taken ? : Link.

- Do you plan to continue taking their modifications, for the futures EMM versions ?

Jojo_Fr said:

- But I don't well understand what did you decided to take from them. For example, in this full list of EitB modifications, do you have, generally, all taken ?

Click to expand...

Generally yes. I can't remember any change that hasn't been ported besides the Council of Esus wonder one. You can check the changelog and the features list for details.

Jojo_Fr said:

- Do you plan to continue taking their modifications, for the futures EMM versions ?

Click to expand...

Yes.

It's great. Thank you.

Didn't you leave the FIN change? I haven't paid close attention, but that's what I remember from waaaay back.

Qgqqqqq said:

Didn't you leave the FIN change? I haven't paid close attention, but that's what I remember from waaaay back.

Click to expand...

It should be included:

ExtraModMod features said:

Financial no longer gives extra commerce in tiles with 2 commerce. Instead, it gives +25% Gold in cities.

Click to expand...

Erebus in the Balance Cumulative Changelog said:

Financial gives +25% Gold in Cities and fast Markets and Moneychangers.

Click to expand...

I just checked and the "fast Markets and Moneychangers" part is also included in EMM.

This reminded me of another difference: in some cases ExtraModMod uses different traits for leaders that are in both mods.

Installed 0.5.0-beta2 over a patch o installation, renamed mod dir from "Fall from Heaven 2" to "Fall from Heaven 2 ExtraModMod", and got "GFC Error: fails to initialize the primary control theme" crash on startup until I followed the instructions in http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6564074#post6564074, which fixed it.