C2C - Transhuman Era

That said, in all technicality, with what Alberts was trying to say he was right in that there's no direct correlation nor need to attempt to establish one necessarily.

Click to expand...

Which then raises the question in my mind. What is the Need or Purpose for this portion of this file?
<GameTurnInfo>
<iMonthIncrement>480</iMonthIncrement>
<iTurnsPerIncrement>500</iTurnsPerIncrement>
</GameTurnInfo>

Or any other segment like it, much less 9-12 of them.

The argument posed is negated by the fact they Do exist and Do have a purpose. Otherwise all you need is One Turn Increment segment for how many turns you want a particular game speed to have. I.e., this example would suffice for our current Eternity GS.
<GameTurnInfo>
<iMonthIncrement>12</iMonthIncrement>
<iTurnsPerIncrement>14000</iTurnsPerIncrement>
</GameTurnInfo>


Again another question: If there is no correlation, no "There is no link to eras", then Why did Firaxis use this pattern for Civ IV and the GS they put into the game ? It is quite possible the correlation is in the games engine where we as modders have no access. Is that not a possibility? And they gave us these files to manipulate that correlation.

I say it is very logical to say there is a reason for the pattern of GS and a correlation to Eras and to research rate and to unit "training" and so much more. It's all right there in the xml file and the xml files that have dependencies upon it, as EraInfos does to GS.

The statement that these turn increments have nothing to do with Eras is illogical from the evidence given to us in the base game xml files.

But I will also say that it will require testing to find the "proper" correlation. And if testing proves there is none then changing all the GS turn Increment into 1 segment would save coding space and make Modding a GS's length of turns Very easy.

JosEPh

I agree with Joe here. Those entries for game speed were aimed at getting the dates to match the tech and the basic match was done by era but era is not mentioned in the XML. This gives you a better way of tuning it especially if you have some bottleneck techs. It allows you to get a bottom range for dates since you know the minimum techs you need to have researched to get to that tech.

@Joe, I don't think people are having a go at you, they are just using the "Mayflower" arguement which basically says "we could not get it to work and those before us could not get it to work so it is not possible to get it to work!". Sometimes it is true but often some young thing comes along and proves them wrong.

BtW did you hear about the mathematician who made a major breakthrough in maths in the last 10 years? She was 80 and started studying maths again when she retired at 60! There is hope for us youngsters, at 60+, yet!.

Are WE really concerned about "dates?" I thought about a year ago, WE were even thinking about deleting the dates from C2C?

strategyonly said:

Are WE really concerned about "dates?" I thought about a year ago, WE were even thinking about deleting the dates from C2C?

Click to expand...

SO,
I'm not concerned about specific dates but for the range of dates for each of our Eras.

Dates are mentioned because I asked for a consensus of each Era start and stop date range.

The long drawn out posts that followed were discussion of academic naming and what events were tied to those.

Those discussion have nothing in particular to do with my Project of GS clean up.

And someone else would have to figure out how to eliminate the in game date process. Not my concern.

JosEPh

JosEPh_II said:

Which then raises the question in my mind. What is the Need or Purpose for this portion of this file?
<GameTurnInfo>
<iMonthIncrement>480</iMonthIncrement>
<iTurnsPerIncrement>500</iTurnsPerIncrement>
</GameTurnInfo>

Or any other segment like it, much less 9-12 of them.

Click to expand...

To get the game to play out so that the time taken to develop techs roughly correlates to real world progress, while making each tech take pretty similar amounts of research time in the game, it required making the turns in the early portions of the game take longer periods of time, the earlier, the longer time per turn. Which also shows, in part, just how much faster humanity is developing today than it did just 1000 years ago.

The argument posed is negated by the fact they Do exist and Do have a purpose. Otherwise all you need is One Turn Increment segment for how many turns you want a particular game speed to have. I.e., this example would suffice for our current Eternity GS.
<GameTurnInfo>
<iMonthIncrement>12</iMonthIncrement>
<iTurnsPerIncrement>14000</iTurnsPerIncrement>
</GameTurnInfo>

Click to expand...

To do this, one would need earlier techs to take hundreds of turns in comparison to later ones taking just a few.

Again another question: If there is no correlation, no "There is no link to eras", then Why did Firaxis use this pattern for Civ IV and the GS they put into the game ? It is quite possible the correlation is in the games engine where we as modders have no access. Is that not a possibility? And they gave us these files to manipulate that correlation.

Click to expand...

We're not saying that a correlation wasn't intended in design... just that there's nothing in the code to absolutely enforce such a correlation.

I say it is very logical to say there is a reason for the pattern of GS and a correlation to Eras and to research rate and to unit "training" and so much more. It's all right there in the xml file and the xml files that have dependencies upon it, as EraInfos does to GS.

The statement that these turn increments have nothing to do with Eras is illogical from the evidence given to us in the base game xml files.

Click to expand...

Again, it's simply a matter of stating that maintaining adherence to such era based turn time planning is not absolutely necessary, even though it may have been shown to be intended by the designers who had the same number of turn time increment shifts as they did eras. Therefore, the necessity of maintaining this correlation is not absolutely necessary if it gets in the way of a better way to map out the turn time increments. Personally, to follow the KISS principle, I would consider the turn time increment phases to take place by era as you would.

I'm not making arguments against you here, just pointing out that what may seem like an enforced structure isn't and if it helps to understand that then you have an extra tool to consider.

I think Transhuman ERA should have DNA-Revival tech which unobsoletes early animal units and neandertals, then provides upgrades via DNA-engineering and cybernetic implants.
also I think for transhuman one Punk theme is not enough - it should be 3-4 independent Punk techs in Transhuman ERA.
And some more candies I can't even think out.

Early Testing for each Game Speed is ongoing.

The 1st 3 GS; Normal, Epic, and Marathon are just needing some small tweaks. Their respective # of turns currently stand at:
Normal = 1064 turns (a 100 turn increase)
Epic = 1999 turns (a 17 turn increase)
Marathon = 3015 turns ( a 45 turn decrease)

Snail is getting closer too. It currently has only lost 65 turns, 4980 to 4915.

Eon and Eternity previously in the testing were reduced to 6,943 and 7,730. But these numbers will likely increase slightly as I make further adjustments to keep the GSs overall scaled to # of Tech each individual Era contains.

The Date Ranges are close to what was discussed but are still being adjusted ( I can only do so many test games at a time and hence testing is the big time eater here.)

The amount of Gold generated per GS has been decreased. Currently about 10-15% Overall. This should appease the "too much gold" players a little bit. But not kill the "not enough Gold" players either.

The Option: Upscaled Unit and Building Costs will be worked on After the Main GS are stabilized. So that I can then have a better base to work from for the Options intented goal of Increasing Unit and Building Cost by 35%. The author or last Modder to work on this Option also tried to tweak Training and Building times as well as Research and Tile Improvements and Upgrade time. All of which are all over the place per GS and have nothing to do with either the Unit or Building direct Cost.

JosEPh

JosEPh_II said:

The amount of Gold generated per GS has been decreased. Currently about 10-15% Overall. This should appease the "too much gold" players a little bit. But not kill the "not enough Gold" players either.

Click to expand...

Currently testing the idea of increasing all tech costs, but buffing the + and - of various science buildings, specifically labs. So, the base maintenance cost of say an undersea lab is -1500 or something massive. But it still gives a decent science boost.

Ehh, C2C is so complicated that it doesn't seem to matter. But the tax revenue from something screwy and tax-evasiony like a tank factory should really not be able to cover the full cost of a properly supplied chemistry lab (including training costs, supplies, R&D, utilities, rent, housekeeping, and ever-present wages).

Making people actually pay for science might be worth investigating, at least further than I have. The whole commerce thing with Civ4 commerce percentages went out the window long ago, all we can do now is add buildings that give crippling cost but add essential science.

Maybe make people have to choose between having an army of tanks, or a shiny new laboratory that discovers the new tank design 50 turns before the enemy.

FYI, What you are trying to modifiy is Micro. The Modifiers I'm working with are Macro.

JosEPh

JosEPh_II said:

FYI, What you are trying to modifiy is Micro. The Modifiers I'm working with are Macro.

JosEPh

Click to expand...

You sure? I took every laboratory building and increased the maintenance by x10 along with the science boon. But altered CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml alongside it. Doubled tech costs across the board (it screwed up x-92 to x-104 tech costs too, at least I hope that was it, x105+ was fine.)

Thousand gold maintenance costs for science buildings sounds pretty macro to me.

Look, anything to get excess gold under control.

When you adjust individual bldgs you are microing.

Thousand gold maintenance costs for science buildings sounds pretty macro to me.

Click to expand...

When you adjust 1-3 Global Modifiers you are Macroing.

Curious, How did you Double Research "costs" in the GameSpeedInfo.xml?

Doubled tech costs across the board

Click to expand...

JosEPh

JosEPh_II said:

When you adjust individual bldgs you are microing.

When you adjust 1-3 Global Modifiers you are Macroing.

Curious, How did you Double Research "costs" in the GameSpeedInfo.xml?

JosEPh

Click to expand...

Speaking from memory.
There should be an input in gamespeed xml which name contain the word:
tech, research or science
that can be doubled for all gamespeeds.

If the value for a particular gamespeed is 100, that gamespeed won't adjust the tech cost at all, and the cost is purly modified by other XML's, there are multiple xmls that do modify the cost of techs.

Toffer! Welcome Back! Hope you're here to stay for a bit?

Thunderbrd said:

Toffer! Welcome Back! Hope you're here to stay for a bit?

Click to expand...

Not there yet, sorry to say. I don't know when I'll be back proper.
But I'll check in from time to time to keep myself updated on the latest development here.

I know the feeling. Been on brownout mode myself for a bit here but I'll resurge for a bit soon.