C2C - Wonder Civs

Hydromancerx said:

@bill2505 & Nightguard

Well I am trying to make it so its not giving any type a civ of an advantage. We could just as well have the Apache civ making an embassy with the Ottomans and then produce Janissary units. Remember in out games there is no possible way to make it play out exactly like it did non Earth. This is not suppose to be a replication of history but a way to play a civilization in the world that happens to be in the world of that specific game.

We want to make it so you can have some games where the timelines are very similar to history while others are completely different from history. Its all depends upon how you play and what situations play out with the terrain, AI and random events.

At the core of this concept is not what civ you pick to play but how you choose to play the game. I hope you guys understand that. Because really Iam seriously thinking of just naming each civ like Blue, Red, Yellow, etc so people don't get so hung up about the civilization name.

Its all about the "What If" factor.

Click to expand...

That's actually what I was trying to imply you were doing in my last post. So, new plan. I'll let you defend your own ideas and shut up on that front.

Dynamic leader traits? I'd never heard of that before, aside from a much less robust version that I'd seen in some FfH modmods. This looks very impressive. Seems like you've put a LOT of thought into making the gameplay as adaptive and flexible as possible. I can't wait to see where you go from here.

Civilizations didn't form as they were due to any kind of 'destiny'. They formed as a result of their religions and their environment. That point has been made and its what Hydro is attempting here. I may squabble on minor points of HOW to go about it and what the end result should be but I'm personally sick of being held in the box of pre-existant Earth civs and think this is a grand notion.

If it could be made an OPTION that might help us - but such would be challenging for such a wide sweeping concept. I also think the core solutions for this issue would be adjustments to the dll.

As for names of civs, I'm a bit with Hydro on that too. But surely, we can make a random name generator to fill some gaps - and imagine up a ton of new names to go alongside the pre-existing earth civ names as well.

Keep pluggin' Hydro... you're doing fantastic here. But establishing some unique programming features to support the concept seems to perhaps be in order. Probably beyond me but I think we have some improved dll support now. Koshling learns the civ code rapidly and I'm thinking he's going to make a whole lot possible down the road.

it seems that most want it this good luck then this mod is one of the best i had played

Thanks for the encouragement Thunderbrd. I needed that.

As expected it is not working yet. In my current game as Egyptians, at Mysticism I was able to build obelisk, monument and totem pole in the same city. Later I was able to build stele in all cities. I also build Stonehenge which gave me a free monument in all cities. Even at this stage of the game it does not seem quite right.

Dancing Hoskuld said:

In my current game as Egyptians, at Mysticism I was able to build obelisk

Click to expand...

What was your religion? If it was the Egyptian one then it worked.

The problem, at the moment, is that currently all cities and nations are the same. Which is a bit boring.

Hydro, need you to do one thing, before all this gets to far, is to keep a copy of what the game is BEFORE you actually changed all this stuff to work this way, just incase, it doesnt work correctly, or too many people complain, ok, just food for thought. That way YOU can just put everything back the way it was, as i said "JUST INCASE".....

strategyonly said:

Hydro, need you to do one thing, before all this gets to far, is to keep a copy of what the game is BEFORE you actually changed all this stuff to work this way, just incase, it doesnt work correctly, or too many people complain, ok, just food for thought. That way YOU can just put everything back the way it was, as i said "JUST INCASE".....

Click to expand...

its called C2C v11. And yes I have back ups of each version you have released (plus some mod only versions too).

Just know the more we add to the mod the harder it will be to put it back the way it was. For instance I had to redo all my mods since many had overrides for the unique buildings too.

Thus if they were ever put back in it may be easier to add back in as a mod rather than in the core files again. Thus people who would like to have it the way it was could have an add-on. Since its much easier to add modular files than it is to take them away.

Dancing Hoskuld said:

The problem, at the moment, is that currently all cities and nations are the same. Which is a bit boring.

Click to expand...

Not really. You still are limited by what resources are in the city vicinity, what civics you have in place and what your religion is.

Hydromancerx said:

Not really. You still are limited by what resources are in the city vicinity, what civics you have in place and what your religion is.

Click to expand...

You mean what your religions are. I change my religion fairly often depending on my needs.

strategyonly said:

Hydro, need you to do one thing, before all this gets to far, is to keep a copy of what the game is BEFORE you actually changed all this stuff to work this way, just incase, it doesnt work correctly, or too many people complain, ok, just food for thought. That way YOU can just put everything back the way it was, as i said "JUST INCASE".....

Click to expand...

Sounds like a vote for source control

For the peace and sanctity of the many styles of play, I strongly suggest making this a game option - and adjust the xml files and dll accordingly. I also suggest, Hydro, that you get with Koshling to work out how some core elements that could enhance the idea and make it run more smoothly could be incorporated into dll modifications that adjust based on the option being on or off as well.

You once told me you could make xml modding dependant on various options. This is a good place for that kind of deeper approach. Sure, its more complex, but it makes sure that such a radical concept, genius as it is, doesn't remove the enjoyment of play from some who prefer a more core game style.

@Thunderbrd

The problem is you can only make additions optional. Having the unique buildings the way they originally were is actually an addition. That's why I had to edit the core files. I could not do it modularity (or i would have). Since unique buildings are piggy backing on top of existing buildings it makes things much more difficult.

That's why i said in the beginning that if we were doing this it would have to be "all or nothing" since its so linked to the core files. So basically we are at a crossroads ...

1. Backwards - Much of my files within my mod would be nearly impossible to undo if the core files were reset to the old way. Thus I would need to go forward if we want to go back (if that makes sense). In short this choice may be the hardest choice to do since its easy to get the toothpaste out of the tube but its quite another to put it back in.

2. Forwards - If we go this way then the whole civilization system will be changed into a new method described above. It would explore new things we just have not tested yet. This has the potential to be a great success or a total flop. But all innovative things have risks.

3. Sideways - All Civs would stay the way they were and only additional civs in the form of "minor civs" would be added. This was the original plan and is currently in play for the Neanderthal Embassy. In short it would work like that. Not completely modular (units would still be part of the core, but it could be made to be).

4. Implode - This way would cut our losses and just removed all the unique buildings and no "Embassy Wonders". This way would piss off both sides but it would at least remove the issue.

5. Stationary - Nothing more is added and everything that has been changed is left the way it is. In short we do nothing.

Personally i would like #2 or even #3. However #1 I would not like to do and #4 seems like a waste. While #5 I would like to avoid.

EDIT: Now that I think about it there may be a #6 choice that combines many of the choices. Basically it would work like this ...

1. All Unique buildings would be removed.
2. All original unique buildings would be added as their own mod the way they originally were.
3. All new changes would be in their own new mod as well.
4. You would have to pick if you want it the old way or the new way by adding either the old stuff mod or the new stuff mod.

Note this is a messy solution that sounds more like AND than C2C.

Ok, is it possible to go and edit the core buildings and make it so that IF option is ON, it gets edited according to x,y,z principles under the new approach BUT IF option is OFF, it gets edited INTO to its original form? Is there a way to break down these buildings into their individual bases so that we can create a dual branching tree of edits for them?

This idea is akin to stem cells - give the buildng ultimate basics in the core but make it modded to one or the other either way based on the option selected or deselected.

EDIT: I think you might've hit on the idea as I did and was putting up your edit as I was posting a reply.

It may be 'messy' but the value in offering the ability to play either way might be worth a lot. Even for those of us who like the idea it might be a preference for a particular game, or if playing with multiple players say in hotseat, to give all this as an option.

I know it represents a lot more work too... and I'm sorry to push for this direction for that reason. But I want what you do here to be widely well received and making it an option will go a long ways towards never 'corrupting' the game for those players who DON'T want to play this way but love everything else about the mod and are pulling their hair out wishing it hadn't been put in.

The WoC modular stuff lets you do all sorts of things including turning XML on and off based on game options. Some things are easier than others. Changing some values (except back to default values) and adding extra bits (resource effects) are easy. Others you need to use the "force overwrite" tag (or what ever it is called) which basically replaces the old building (or whatever) with your definition. You can't delete a building but you can overwrite it.

The problem Hydro is having is that UBs share a BUILDINGCLASS so if he used the forced overwrite tag you should/would be given the option of building one of the set of buildings. Given that some have differing requirements you may want to build one you can't yet access.

@Thunderbrd

Well the problem I see is no other mods could touch that mod then. Its basically putting a leash on that mod (which is how it was trying to do add-on mods for AND).

The bigger issue is why people are going nuts about these changes. I would think people would like to customize their civilizations more. The new method in theory would allow for a fully customizable civilization rather than a pre-made one. ...

I just had a eureka moment! What if there was a civilization made just to be customizable? One that the player would be encourage to play as. This would be a single add-on civ just like the other add-on civs. However this one could gain access to anything.

Hmmm. Wait never mind. Maybe not.If the AI is not doing it too then you would just end up getting all the Embassies. Not to mention you have to many a copy of every unique unit for the individual embassies too.

Darn it!

EDIT: Looks like we are just better off going forward and trying something new. Not everyone will like it but, not everyone like my other modding changes either. Strategyonly said he trusts me and I will try to make it really awesome. Who knows with some innovation, testing and tweaking we may end up with something to make everyone happy (or atleast forget about the old way of playing).

This is my first post after at least 8 years of lurking on these boards. I have been playing Civ since I found it installed on a university computer in 1992. And after a few years of ROMing (couldn't get into AND, not sure why) I've been playing C2C for the last 2 months. When I saw this idea I was blown away.

The generic startup Civ is another of the great ideas that Civ could have been.

Civ is the game of "what if?". What if the greeks had been beaten at Thermopylae? What if the Americans had lost the War of Independence? What if there were no silk worms in China but were instead found in Mexico? What if Sid didn't design Civilization 20 years ago? (No, don't try to imagine, you might have had a real life).

What if Neanderthals survived to 12000BC. I prefer to turn them off as they were all gone 24000 years ago (not 12000) but I like that there is a choice. The ideas that are being proposed are too big a change to be optional and shouldn't be. The choice should be in the implementation.

The Greeks could have built pyramids or sphinxes as did an older culture that did influence them but the Greeks chose a different road. They made a choice. I doubt Bill limits his Greeks to only building Greek buildings or Wonders so what is so different with this idea.

However for people like Bill there should be a way to play as he likes, ie, choose to be a Greek and then pick all the options that make them Greek. And once you start down a path it should be easy to pick up cultural traits, units or buildings from similar cultures but it is a choice. eg. The Romans picked up many Greek ideas and even took their religion and myths (slightly modified).

So, start with a generic culture (maybe in the same way as civics are used). The base civic is European or Asian or African, etc. This is racial and some may say that the Mongols are vastly different from the Chinese but were they all that different 12000 years ago? What choices in the following 8000 years made them the way they became? One group wanted stability and learnt agriculture, the other learnt to live with horses and stayed nomadic.

Language is the biggest cultural difference and can begin the path to Greekness. As a European, I can choose to build Native Language (Greek). Once I have that, I am then limited to Greek variations of UU's and UB's unless I meet and learn another language (build Foreign Language (Persian)). The Foreign Language buildings are expensive (these are the "embassies" already mentioned, not a name I like BTW) and even once they are built only allow foreign construction at an increased price.

However, once my Greek city has built no or few specific Greek buildings and has built a bunch of foreign ones, they can flip to the other culture. Say you build a Roman forum, an aqueduct (Roman), a roman legion and your temple is dedicated to Jupiter not Zeus then you have a chance to jump ship to becoming fully Roman. If you build none of these you stay fully Greek (this is how Bill can still play your Mod).

Take the example of Britain in the first century. The Celts spoke Celtic, built hill forts and axe-wielding maniacs and followed Druidic practices. They became Romanized (I know through conquest) but many were already starting to appreciate Roman goods and lifestyle. This should be what happens to a vassal state in Civ.

I could go on but won't. This is a great idea and there are many ways to implement it. Giving the option to keep the Greeks Greek is a way to increase the challenge (by having to make choices) and add even more what if's to a game that was built on what if.

@Baradar67

Wonderfully said. I like your idea about using languages. However I wonder if it would get really complex fast. For example English is an amalgamation of many languages be it dead languages like Latin, to different types of English such as American, British, Australian or even Spanglish.

while I don't exactly agree on using language I would agree on using some sort of core culture for civilizations. Which is one reason i suggested the "Embassy" buildings. It would in theory include all these things, be it UB, UU, Language, etc.

Baradar67 said:

This is my first post after at least 8 years of lurking on these boards. I have been playing Civ since I found it installed on a university computer in 1992. And after a few years of ROMing (couldn't get into AND, not sure why) I've been playing C2C for the last 2 months. When I saw this idea I was blown away.

Click to expand...

Thx for writing, and Welcome to CFC. (Well at least your 1st Post

Hydro,
I support you and your ideas. And if the Team (with SO's approval) is in agreement then do it. I personally have kept version10.2 and v11 so I could go back and revisit their individual uniqueness.

I remember seeing this happen in AND (opposition to new things that didn't follow the "Civ Tradition"). And in the long run AND lost out because it lost it's focus and finally the Fun. Afforess is trying to put some focus and Fun back in with this new beta. Otherwise, I truly believe he would've "Let It Be". (I really loved your "Farms" and their ideas in AND version 1.55 and 1.61)

Along time ago Zappara had a quote he would say when opposition to new things became intense, "Make the Mod for yourself." "Then if it pleases You it will in the long run please someone else but not Everyone else".

One last comment/thought, Not everything must be "Balanced". If every aspect of the game becomes "balanced" then the spectra of mediocrity casts it's shadow (and terms like boring and bland surface). Sometimes being unbalanced leads to a more challenging play or an exploit. And with either it becomes a players choice to use or not use. And choice Is the crux and crucible. Crux because we must choose, Crucible because we the players must purge our desires by either giving into exploitation or by accepting the challenge.

Be Strong, Be Courageous, and in the long run you will be Satisfied with what you have done.

JosEPh