BAT Errata

EmperorFool said:

I am also highly in favor of BAT Mod mods or modpacks. I have no problem with altering gameplay--I do it myself. I just want to ensure that BUG and BAT in their normal forms continue to be unaltered. I love to see BUG used in the base of so many popular mods that alter gameplay, and I think it'd be great to see it with BAT too.

Should the main BAT installer have an option to include the MEE? I don't have any immediate objections as long as it's optional. What about you, Ruff? Players? It seems it would merely make it easier for LM and players.

Click to expand...

1. Should the main BAT installer have an option to include the MEE?
Yes, but I suggest only if Avain confirms MEE will be or is still supported. I just don't think that is the case from asking about in the VD forum; Besides the graphics update; I think the gameplay part is a 'rough draft', even though it is very good as is, compared to actually maintaining it only in Quot Capita.

2. There seems to be potential choices about the road graphics (asphalt/modern roads) when merging or deciding to overlay some files. I think Road graphics should be an installer option.

3. There needs to be a nice way to include JDOG's or FUYU's BETTER AI.
Right now if you use JDOG's version; BULL is lost because of the DLL. Fuyu's work is really great right now because we get a pretty recent version of BUG and BULL plus JDOG's Better AI and a few extra changes from Fuyu, which, in turn, I wish were also optional, Global Warming options and other changes.

4. Having Blue Marble (High or Low Res) is already great.

These seem to be these four XML files that overlap from Fuyu's Better BUG AI and BAT 2.2a, the problem being, Fuyu's mod is better BUG AI and not exactly better BAT AI.

ART : CIV4ArtDefines-Unit, CIV4RouteModeslInfos

GAMEINFO : CIV4EraInfos
I don't know why BAT 2.2a needs this file. It seems to me it is change from VD's MEE.

UNITS : CIV4UnitInfos
may be a bad thing because This file contains the variables that define a Unit's abilities. It also contains a few variables defining the Unit graphics. More of these can be found in CIV4ArtDefines_Unit.xml So VD may update a graphics entry and a better ai some unit abilities



Another thing I would LOVE to see is music Mod options, swapping out the ERA vanilla music with some different era themed music. I do this myself
but finding the right songs is harder than it seems, and a music mod would need not to infringe on copyrights.

fine by me if you can get the installer to do that. I would include a warning that it modifies the base game just so someone doesn't come back and complain (too much ).

I really don't think you guys should be throwing the weight of BUG behind a mod that modifies the base game. By arbitrarily picking Avain's work you are assigning it a unique status as a "standardized expansion". This is the power BUG's wields, and you need to know this before throwing the weight of BUG behind any modder's work. For graphics Avain was first, and he arguably did the best and highest quality of work (except for the recent relapse with the instability of the last version of VD). But expansion based mods are something else entirely.

If you want to release a modified expansion pack I really think you should allow those of us like cybrxkhan, myself, and bobeBrown to submit our mods for evaluation along with Avain's. You can pick the best among these. But I do not think it is fair to arbitrarily assign Avain the distinction of the new standardized expansion mod without first reviewing the other work out there. Personally I think mine is superior, but I'll accept it if it reviewed and decided otherwise; however I would find it profoundly unfair to not even have a shot at it.

I understand your point, and it's not my intention to validate or support a single modpack as "the best." Keep in mind that BAT is just like the other modpacks out there that combine BUG and BULL with art and other features. It was started by one of the BUG team founders, and maybe that confers some special status on it, but I think the other modpacks out there get far more downloads.

I had always thought that MEE was just more art stuff so I was a bit surprised when I read above that it had altered gameplay elements. This is new territory for us, and rest assured we'll discuss the options before making a decision.

phungus420 said:

I really don't think you guys should be throwing the weight of BUG behind a mod that modifies the base game. By arbitrarily picking Avain's work you are assigning it a unique status as a "standardized expansion". This is the power BUG's wields, and you need to know this before throwing the weight of BUG behind any modder's work. For graphics Avain was first, and he arguably did the best and highest quality of work (except for the recent relapse with the instability of the last version of VD). But expansion based mods are something else entirely.

Click to expand...

The MEE is already a component of VD, and has been since 7.5 IIRC. We actually remove it to use VD in BAT. The reason that I have been considering altering these little modcomps is that I have had a number of requests to do so. The reason that I have been specifically considering the VD add ons is that the infrastructure is already there, and the additions are (relatively) easy to incorporate. There is no "favoritism" implied here, and I am not endorsing anyone's mod.

If you want to release a modified expansion pack I really think you should allow those of us like cybrxkhan, myself, and bobeBrown to submit our mods for evaluation along with Avain's. You can pick the best among these. But I do not think it is fair to arbitrarily assign Avain the distinction of the new standardized expansion mod without first reviewing the other work out there. Personally I think mine is superior, but I'll accept it if it reviewed and decided otherwise; however I would find it profoundly unfair to not even have a shot at it.

Click to expand...

I have no intention of altering BAT, and I'm not trying to throw BUG behind any modder's work. What I am suggesting, is some small, available additions, that can be optionally added to BAT by the end user if they so choose. But let me be very clear about this. They break the UG philosophy of the core mods, and as such, must be considered separately and with no linkage or endorsement from BUG. For me to promote any of this as BUG endorsed would be an outrageous abuse of my limited position in the development team, and plain, flat out unethical.

As far as including the work of other modders, I have no trouble with that at all. There are a couple of extra things from the modding community going into BAT 3.0, including my now completed movie mod. (Btw, you are responsible for guiding me through most of the Python in my mod, and cybrxkhan did most of the music for it.) Aside from the selfish inclusion of my own mod, the other things have been chosen from the community by myself and EF, and it has been discussed whether these inclusions will fit within the overall scope of the mod, and we feel that they will. If someone wants to give us something for consideration for inclusion, then please do, but ultimately, we decide. There are some excellent alternatives to Varietas that are available, but in some cases there are UG issues, and in some cases, the resulting build size is very large and unwieldy. I've been looking at other mods since I started with BAT, and I haven't decided if Varietas will be in BAT 3.0 yet. It will be in BAT 2.3, for certain, due to timing issues, but I may completely rebuild the graphics core for 3.0.

The content of the next major release will not be decided by a committee. I will make my recommendations to the BUG team, based on what I feel that I can achieve, and we will decide what goes in, and what goes out.

Finally, if people are going to feel slighted, or the modding community is going to object about add ons, then work on them stops right now.

(Natasha types "Format K:" and rests her finger on the enter key... and waits...)

phungus420 said:

I really don't think you guys should be throwing the weight of BUG behind a mod that modifies the base game. By arbitrarily picking Avain's work you are assigning it a unique status as a "standardized expansion". This is the power BUG's wields, and you need to know this before throwing the weight of BUG behind any modder's work. For graphics Avain was first, and he arguably did the best and highest quality of work (except for the recent relapse with the instability of the last version of VD). But expansion based mods are something else entirely.

If you want to release a modified expansion pack I really think you should allow those of us like cybrxkhan, myself, and bobeBrown to submit our mods for evaluation along with Avain's. You can pick the best among these. But I do not think it is fair to arbitrarily assign Avain the distinction of the new standardized expansion mod without first reviewing the other work out there. Personally I think mine is superior, but I'll accept it if it reviewed and decided otherwise; however I would find it profoundly unfair to not even have a shot at it.

Click to expand...

My first response to this post was 'don't get your knickers in a knot'. My second was 'BUG has weight?'. In the spirit of Gag Halfrunt, "Vell, BUG's just zis mod, you know?".

Our fundamental approach to BUG (and by extension to BULL and BAT) has always been unaltered game play. Our secondary approach that I don't think we have consciously expressed has been to make the civ4 modders life easier. You can see all of the great work that EF has put into that effort by the adoption of BUG as a fundamental building block on lots of other mods.

If we decide that we want to extend that approach to the users of our mods - you know, the people that actually pay our wages - then we will. If we get some requests for providing patches to overlay BUG or BAT with game altering mod components (overlaying BULL is just too hard ), if the BUG team has interest and / or it easy to do, then why shouldn't we do that?

phungus420 - it isn't as if you need the weight of the BUG team behind your mod to help promote it - I think you are doing a wonderful job of that already. Finally - have you checked LM's sig lately!

@LM - please press these keys ... [delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete]. If it gets to much for you, think about editing your sig.

I gave the assorted comments in this thread some thought today, and in order to clear up some confusion, I have formulated a few "rules" regarding BAT, its' included goodies, and my specific "design philosophy" for how I actually put it all together. These are the rules that I already follow.

1. The version of BAT that is published by the BUG team will never have an included option which alters game play from standard BTS.

2. Mods which are included in BAT will be chosen by the BUG team, based on the sole criteria that it enhances the basic look and feel of the game, or that it adds an aesthetic element that enhances the user's experience while playing.

3. To be included with BAT, a mod must be modular, and any Python components must support EF's new modular BUG framework. BAT 2.2a now conforms as will all future releases. If we wish to include a mod that does not conform, I will contact the modder for permission. If the modder is agreeable, I will edit the Python to conform, and the release notes will stipulate that it has been altered to work with BAT. A mod included in this way will not have its look and feel changed in any way.

4. If, due to user requests, the BUG team wishes to release an optional component as an "add on" or mod comp, then we reserve the right to do so, without implying any favoritism or endorsement of anyone's mod. It will be released separately as a user installable option, and will not be treated as a core part of BAT. Further clarification will come if something like this is ever actually released.

5. The final decision on what is actually included in BAT rests with EmperorFool and ruff_hi.

And those are the rules, boys and girls.

-LM

First I have to say that I´m enjoying civ with the bat mod even more.

It looks like I have discovered a little bug. The redcoats are using the skin of the musketiers as you can see on the attached picture.

That skin is correct. What's going on is most likely an issue with translations, as it's the name that's being assigned by the UnitNameing mod that's bothering you, saying Muskateer #24. This doesn't happen in English, so it's likely just a mistranslation of the redcoat unit in German.

The selected unit is a musketier! Look at the stats, I got this units with the discover of gunpower. Above the selected unit is a the redcoat unit. As said before, the 2 skins are mixed. Just look at the little item card and you will see it is a musketier

The selected unit is a Musketman (german: Musketier). The Musketeer unit is France's UU, replacing the Musketman.
I'm no expert but I agree, with that hat they look like Redcoats. Musketmen should wear a metal helmets..

It isn't a translation error. The unit art pointer in VD 8 (and VD 9) uses the Redcoat art for the Musketman, and the Colonial Rifleman for the Redcoat.

From VD_English_CIV4UnitArtStyleTypeInfos.xml:

You can see from the attached thumbnails how it looks in-game. I'm not exactly up on my American War of Independance history, so I'm going to need some input from someone a little more knowledgable in things historical. It's easy to change for the next release, I just don't want to make a change that will upset the apple cart, and have history buffs down my neck.

They are definitely backwards. The Redcoat uniform is quite distinctive, even for me--a non-historian with an American education.

EmperorFool said:

They are definitely backwards. The Redcoat uniform is quite distinctive, even for me--a non-historian with an American education.

Click to expand...

Well, my excuse is that I didn't have an American education.

Lemon Merchant said:

Well, my excuse is that I didn't have an American education.

Click to expand...

That can only be a compliment to you.

EmperorFool said:

That can only be a compliment to you.

Click to expand...

Seems that I didn't learn much in Dublin, either.

You certainly learned how to pick a yummy avatar.

My american history edu comes from "the patriot", as my britian comes from "breave heart". Oh Mel teacher of the blind.

Here you can see redcoats in action.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7ZgTD60PhA&feature=related

EmperorFool said:

They are definitely backwards. The Redcoat uniform is quite distinctive, even for me--a non-historian with an American education.

Click to expand...

I've been looking around, and I think you're right about them being backwards. The Redcoat is definitely in the wrong tag. I'm not sure the Colonial Rifleman will please some people as the Musketman graphic, but it's all I have to work with ATM. I'll snoop around and see if I can find something more appropriate for that one in the Unit Graphics threads.

But the Redcoat will definitely look like the ones from the history books starting with the next release of BAT.

I'd say both are Redcoats. I agree that the most common image of a Redcoat might be the one you are referring to, but check these:

1742 Redcoat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soldier_of_8th_regiment_1742.jpg
1881 Redcoat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Csgt_40th_1881.jpg

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_coat_(British_army)

... and I like both models and 1881>1742 and the Redcoat in Civ is a Rifleman, hence I moved the vanilla graphics to musketman which is not the best at all, but this is not the biggest problem I can think of regarding the unit rosters across the board...