[Religion and Revolution]: Winds and Storms

I have checked the following:

<iAppearance>0</iAppearance>
<iDisappearance>16</iDisappearance>
<iGrowth>20</iGrowth>

All are related to a random with 10.000 (Ten-Thousand) as a base, so values should be considerably high to see an effect.

However, they are not designed to be used for something as dynamic as "Storms and Winds".

iAppearance is only used once at very first map generation.

iDisappearance and iGrowth however could be used as they are.

-----------------

So ok, I suggest the following implementation:

1. We use a iAppearance for first creation of these features.

2. We also use iDisappearance and iGrowth.

We should stick to this formula:
* iAppearance + iGrowth = iDisappearance

3. Every round we randomly place again using iAppearance <--- Needs to be programmed
(hooking into void CvGame::doTurn() )

To have as little hardcoded as possible I would like to bring in a new XML-tag into Civ4Features.xml:

bGeneratedEveryRound

4. We adjust Pathfinding (Automization / AI) <--- Needs to be programmed
(Eventually not necessary, because Automization / AI might already handle this correct according to <iMovement>)

5. Damage of these features will be applied if passing through (not only at end of turn.) <--- Needs to be programmed

6. Defensive Bonus / Malus as Robert suggests

-----------------

--> Thus we would get a solution that is:

A) Working for all kind of games

B) Somehow dynamic, but not totally chaotic.

C) Relatively easy to implement

-----------------

Feedback ?

KJ Jansson said:

This is correct only in a local case. Please, follow this link. Here "Map prevailing winds on Earth"

Click to expand...

I was talking about the feature / the implementation, not reality.

By the way:

This concept is not yet considering negative effects on production of goods as KJ suggests,
because we have not yet made a decision on having "Storms on Land".

raystuttgart said:

4. We adjust Pathfinding (Automization / AI)

Click to expand...

Couple questions:

1. Could AI units enter on dangerous feature's tiles or you plan to exclude such possibility at all? How strick will be the rules for Pathfinding (Automization / AI)?

I very hope AI units could enter in storms, etc., maybe with 50:50 possibility.

2. Are you plan to repair partially destroyed units before they continue their travel?

KJ Jansson said:

Could AI units enter on dangerous feature's tiles or you plan to exclude such possibility at all? How strick will be the rules for Pathfinding (Automization / AI)?

I very hope AI units could enter in storms, etc., maybe with 50:50 possibility.

Click to expand...

I actually wanted to programm Automization (also used by AI) to always try to avoid dangerous "Storms" and use "Favorable Winds".
(Human player would do that just the same.)

AI would only pass through these dangerous tiles if the way around would be too long.

Also sometimes - through generation every round - one of these features would be placed above an AI ship anyways.

Why should we programm stupid AI.

Actually I believe that with <iMovement> accordingly, AI might totally handle that already without having to adjust Pathfinding.
(But that needs to be tested.)

KJ Jansson said:

Are you plan to repair partially destroyed units before they continue their travel?

Click to expand...

Yes, I would like to teach AI ships to repair if less than 50% health.
(Or sail to Europe or closest city if possible in 1 turn, depending where it comes from.)

raystuttgart said:

I actually wanted to programm Automization (also used by AI) to always try to avoid dangerous "Storms" and use "Favorable Winds".
(Human player would do that just the same.)

AI would only pass through these dangerous tiles if the way around would be too long.

Also sometimes - through generation every round - one of these features would be placed above an AI ship anyways.

Why should we programm stupid AI.

Actually I believe that with <iMovement> accordingly, AI might totally handle that already without having to adjust Pathfinding.
(But that needs to be tested.)

Yes, I would like to teach AI ships to repair if less than 50% health.
(Or sail to Europe or closest city if possible in 1 turn, depending where it comes from.)

Click to expand...

Thank you, Ray, for your comments. I like such variants! Good luck in your programming.

KJ Jansson said:

Good luck in your programming.

Click to expand...

Oh boy, you're really fast.

First of all:

Robert wants to programm this feature.
(I am just suggesting possible solutions for implementation, and will support where I am asked to.)

So if adjustment of Pathfinding is needed and the team wants me to do it, I will.
(Otherwise I will keep my fingers out of that. )

Second:

We still did not really decide what we are exactly going to implement.

1. Is this concept ok ?
(Maybe Robert or somebody else will suggest something totally different.)

2. Will we have "Storm on Land" ?
(This would technically probably be a separate terrain feature.)

3. Which other new terrain features will we have ?

So are we going to do "Reefs" and "Sandstorms" or not ?
Do we already have all graphics we need ?

----------------------

By the way, I really think we had a very constructive discussion so far.

And performance of all this? Since you were so concerned with performance? Is this taken into account? Or nobody know yet?

Gomer_Pyle said:

And performance of all this?

Click to expand...

I think a year ago, KJ, koma, myself and others already had a discussion about performance of a feature like that.
("Wild Animals" and other features would basically have just the same effect on performance.)

Yes, it will definitely cost a tiny bit of performance.
(Of course MapSize will be the major factor here.)

But since it is mostly random based inside DLL without having to check too many states it should not be really noticeable to the player.
(Performance only gets critical if you have to check too many conditions involving a lot of logic and states for a single action.)

I think, this feature is worth it.
(I do not know any solution, that is more performant than what I suggested considering the results we want to have.)

raystuttgart said:

I have checked the following:

<iAppearance>0</iAppearance>
<iDisappearance>16</iDisappearance>
<iGrowth>20</iGrowth>

All are related to a random with 10.000 (Ten-Thousand) as a base, so values should be considerably high to see an effect.

Click to expand...

Yes! My values are waaaaaaaaaaaaay too low !
I'll correct that. Of course, everyone must agree first...

raystuttgart said:

However, they are not designed to be used for something as dynamic as "Storms and Winds".

iAppearance is only used once at very first map generation.

iDisappearance and iGrowth however could be used as they are.

-----------------

So ok, I suggest the following implementation:

1. We use a iAppearance for first creation of these features.

2. We also use iDisappearance and iGrowth.

We should stick to this formula:
* iAppearance + iGrowth = iDisappearance

3. Every round we randomly place again using iAppearance <--- Needs to be programmed
(hooking into void CvGame::doTurn() )

To have as little hardcoded as possible I would like to bring in a new XML-tag into Civ4Features.xml:

bGeneratedEveryRound

4. We adjust Pathfinding (Automization / AI) <--- Needs to be programmed
(Eventually not necessary, because Automization / AI might already handle this correct according to <iMovement>)

5. Damage of these features will be applied if passing through (not only at end of turn.) <--- Needs to be programmed

6. Defensive Bonus / Malus as Robert suggests

-----------------

--> Thus we would get a solution that is:

A) Working for all kind of games

B) Somehow dynamic, but not totally chaotic.

C) Relatively easy to implement

-----------------

Feedback ?

Click to expand...

Great! I agree! I really love it ! That's exactly what I was looking for

Robert Surcouf said:

I'll correct that. Of course, everyone must agree first...

...

Great! I agree! I really love it ! That's exactly what I was looking for

Click to expand...

Actually I believe that

A) The general idea "Winds and Storms" is accepted.

B) The last discussion about implementation details is more like a "programmer thing".

So for me the open questions are:

1. Will we have "Storms on Land" ?

2. Which are the exact new terrain features we will do ?

After that has been agreed on, I suggest the following:

Robert will do the general implementation of the feature.
KJ will check the graphics of this features. (Eventually creating / fixing / improving.)
ray will help Robert with implementation, if needed.
colonialfan and Gomer could do testing once the feature is done.

Does that sound like a plan ?

Here is again my suggestion for our "Weather Features":

raystuttgart said:

So for me the open questions are:

1. Will we have "Storms on Land" ?

2. Which are the exact new terrain features we will do ?

Click to expand...

1. Well for me the most important part was "features on ocean plots". So It doesn't matter. If you (that is KJ, Ray, Colonialfan and Gomer-Pyle) want Storms on land, then it's ok for me. Of course in that case, we should add production penalties as KJ suggested. And, the defense bonuses could probably be removed (...or not I don't know) on land...

2. I don't know...

But is that all the open questions?
3. Does everyone agree with the defense bonus idea? If I'm correct Colonialfan hasn't said anything yet...

@KJ:
You're right about wind directions. Dazio too told me I should add wind directions (North/East/South/West basically and then even more). Does that mean:
A) You like the idea of defense bonuses but the feature isn't realistic enough
(so you want bonuses and directions)
B) You don't like the idea since we would have to program complicated features
(so you want neither bonuses nor directions)
C) You don't like the idea of bonuses but you like wind directions?

I guess I can rule out option D though:
D) You like the idea of bonuses but don't like the idea of wind directions.

4. Actually this was not all.
I realized that you iMovementCost couldn't be fractional (of course that was obvious because of the "i" )... So I considered adding promotions to double your movement cost on favorable winds. I also added a promotion to reduce movement penalties on unfavorable winds. And finally there was one reducing defense penalty (fav. wind) and increasing defense bonus (unfav. wind) [see here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=425319 ]

So my next question is:
4. Does everyone like the idea of wind-related promotions?

The third promotion was unlocked by inventions. And none of them was given freely (this part didn't work as well as I expected, since some trade ships were never promoted...). But I added python events (@Ray: I didn't use TAC random events... at least I don't think so. I used standard events. But we can improve my system of course ) as a reward. So ending your turn on a storm tile could give you some extra experience in exchange for one turn of immobility
(@KJ: Yes! None of these feature should block a ship. I agree with you ! )
And moreover, the Portuguese leaders had the sea explorer trait. They had a free "sea explorer" promotion for every ship.

5. Does everyone like the idea of promotions related to inventions/random events/traits?

6. About other features (Reefs).
KJ will probably want to add other features. What about your reefs?
Seems a good idea.
Your 1492 Reefs and Weather seemed rally cool. I'm sorry if I said something wrong. Maybe I was misinformed...

7. Bonus question !
@everyone: As I told you Ray, I'd like to change back the trait mechanism. At least I'd like to edit Portugal's trait. I'd rather have two traits than three. I'll try to ask TAC team-members again...

Pllleeeeeaaaassseeee, no directions to these weather features !
(This will make things an awful lot more complicated.)

I am really 100% against directions for these features.

Robert Surcouf said:

If you (that is KJ, Ray, Colonialfan and Gomer-Pyle) want Storms on land, then it's ok for me.

Click to expand...

I think it would be a nice addition.

1. If we do it, it should really technically be a separate terrain feature.

Easier to control generation and balancing.
Storms on land should really be very rare.

2. The "production malus" as KJ suggest could really easily be done by XML.

So it is no big effort.

Robert Surcouf said:

Does everyone agree with the defense bonus idea?

Click to expand...

You have convinced me.

Robert Surcouf said:

I realized that you iMovementCost couldn't be fractional (of course that was obvious because of the "i" )... So I considered adding promotions to double your movement cost on favorable winds.

Click to expand...

No, but <iMovement> could be 0 for "Favorable Wind".
Thus we would get around something like "Promotions" for the aspect of movement, which I would like to avoid.
I really want to keep the feature itself as simple as possible.

Otherwise I am fine with promotions (or inventions) that improve usage of these new terrain features.
(Things like "defense bonus" or "damage taken".)

Robert Surcouf said:

What about your reefs?

Click to expand...

Actually I am not a big fan of "Reefs", simply because they are only static obstacles.
I think they will only be annoying for most players.

But on the other hand, they would be easy to add.

So ok, if the team wants "Reefs", why not.

Robert Surcouf said:

@everyone: As I told you Ray, I'd like to change back the trait mechanism. At least I'd like to edit Portugal's trait. I'd rather have two traits than three. I'll try to ask TAC team-members again...

Click to expand...

I cannot remember that discussion.
(But I think, I would rather leave that as it is in TAC.)

raystuttgart said:

Pllleeeeeaaaassseeee, no directions to these weather features !
(This will make things an awful lot more complicated.)

I am really 100% against directions for these features.

Click to expand...

I was just asking KJ, if he wanted to add directions, or if he was rejecting the defense bonus idea

raystuttgart said:

I think it would be a nice addition.

1. If we do it, it should really technically be a separate terrain feature.

Easier to control generation and balancing.
Storms on land should really be very rare.

Click to expand...

I agree

raystuttgart said:

2. The "production malus" as KJ suggest could really easily be done by XML.

So it is no big effort.
You have convinced me.

Click to expand...

Great

raystuttgart said:

No, but <iMovement> could be 0 for "Favorable Wind".
Thus we would get around something like "Promotions" for the aspect of movement, which I would like to avoid.
I really want to keep the feature itself as simple as possible.

Click to expand...

I've already tried. This gives reaaaaaaaaaalys strange results. No movement cost=infinite power !

raystuttgart said:

Otherwise I am fine with promotions (or inventions) that improve usage of these new terrain features.
(Things like "defense bonus" or "damage taken".)

Click to expand...

Ok!

raystuttgart said:

Actually I am not a big fan of "Reefs", simply because they are only static obstacles.
I think they will only be annoying for most players.

But on the other hand, they would be easy to add.

So ok, if the team wants "Reefs", why not.

Click to expand...

Let's wait and see what the others say...

raystuttgart said:

I cannot remember that discussion.
(But I think, I would rather leave that as it is in TAC.)

Click to expand...

I know! It was in a private message and I didn't say much. I only asked why TAC added an additional trait. You told me you didn't know. So I'll ask again TAC team-members

Robert Surcouf said:

the defense bonus idea

Click to expand...

I accept it.

raystuttgart said:

.... no directions to these weather features !
(This will make things an awful lot more complicated.)
I am really 100% against directions for these features.

Click to expand...

I agree with Ray. To be enough if we add Favorable/Unfavoralbe Winds on Ocean plots without directions.

raystuttgart said:

So for me the open questions are:
1. Will we have "Storms on Land" ?
2. Which are the exact new terrain features we will do ?

Click to expand...

Really looks very strange: we have many weather effects on Ocean tiles and nothing on Land ones. Therefore, I guess, some weather effects should be added for Land tiles, too. Let's call them as Storm on Land or Thunderstorm, doesn't matter. We can use the practically same animation as for Storm, but different icons, of course.

Thus, I propose to add "Storm on Land" (or "Thunderstorm") terrain feature. Usual standard map generators are working perfectly on this new terrain. I tested it on "1492: Reefs and Weather" mod.

raystuttgart said:

5. Storm (on Coast and on Land)
-> negative effect considering movement
-> moderate damage every
-> negative effect on production of certain goods (basically as KJ suggests)

Click to expand...

Exactly!

raystuttgart said:

So ok, if the team wants "Reefs", why not.

Click to expand...

Why Reefs (and/or Sandbanks) are interesting?
First of all, they are real and they are one of reasons of shipwrecks. Read here, for instance.

Thus, if Reefs (and/or Sandbanks) will be added we could in future to add Shipwrecks on them (or as Events, or as real accidents with player's or AI ships). Somebody told that in "Age of Discovery" mod was possible to collects lost Goods. "Shipwrecks" is exactly such case.

Thus, my proposal to add Reefs. All animation and icons are ready, tested and working perfectly on standard map generators. Again it was tested on "1492: Reefs and Weather" mod.

raystuttgart said:

2. Which are the exact new terrain features we will do ?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I return to this question again. Theoretically we could add also Sandstorms for Desert tiles and Heavy Snowstroms for polar or Tundra tiles. No problems with animations and icons, however these additions are subject of discussion. They are actial for a global mod as "1492: GC" where we play on real Earth map and I have nothing against if you exclude these features from "R&R" mod.

So ok, let me pick up some points again.

1. Storms on Lands (or Thunderstorms):

I think we should add them.
(Using same animation as Storms on Ocean.)

It really would not feel realisitc if we had storms on ocean but not on land.

However they should be rare.
(No problem to balance, if it is a separate Terrain Feature.)

They should have the "production malus" as KJ suggest.

2. Reefs and Sandbanks:
(normal Map-Generator function used)

Convinced me.

They would be static like normal Terrain Features are.

Any yes it would be realisitc.

However I would also like to keep them rare.

I like the idea of having "Goody Huts" on them.
(It would fit quite well into this concept.)

3. Sandstorms and Snowstorms:

Ok, why not. A little more atmosphere.
We should exclude normal Storms from Desert and Tundra then.

Damage should be a little higher than with "Thunderstorms".
Otherwise I would like to have them work just the same.

They should also be rare.

----------------------------

Are we all ok with that ?

Discussing Tailwind and Headwinds we forgot about the Dead Calm when no wind at all. A ship on Dead Calm feature tile has no damages, but cannot move.

KJ Jansson said:

Discussing Tailwind and Headwinds we forgot about the Dead Calm when no wind at all. A ship on Dead Calm feature tile has no damages, but cannot move.

Click to expand...

Generally, why not.
But how should the graphics look for that.

raystuttgart said:

Generally, why not.
But how should the graphics look for that.

Click to expand...

The graphics is the second question. If this feature would be interesting to team, when I will search some graphics.

To my opinion "Dead Calm" feature should look as a normal ocean tile but without waves.

You've convinced me too KJ!
I love the idea of shipwrecks (graphics already exist if I'm correct!)

Oh yes "Dead Calm" winds. Dazio had the same idea.
"great minds think alike" !