Caveman 2 Cosmos

[Donoya]

It isn't in custom game options.

Space maps are custom maps - there are currently two, that come with this mod - my space map without AIs and TPEHEP space map.
Instead of Custom Game you choose Custom Scenario, and then you select premade map.

I still don't see any scenarios saying anything about space. Do I need to install that part of it separately? Or maybe it's not in the 38.5 version which I'm using.

 

[raxo2222]

I still don't see any scenarios saying anything about space. Do I need to install that part of it separately? Or maybe it's not in the 38.5 version which I'm using.

I already said those scenarios are here.
You really can't see scenarios named VerticalSOLAR or ItSmallWorld?

Spoiler :

You must start new game on them if you want space exploration, but you need to get there first

 

[Donoya]

I already said those scenarios are here.
You really can't see scenarios named VerticalSOLAR or ItSmallWorld?

Spoiler :

View attachment 498663 View attachment 498664

You must start new game on them if you want space exploration, but you need to get there first

I see them, now. I just didn't know those were the space maps. Thanks for your help.

 

[pawel86]

Hello, firstly sorry for my bad English

I spend houndres of hours playing this game and i would like to share few things. I hope in right section

I play around 3-4 years.

Last time on V37 i played with game world biulder I mean that i had all resources all biuldings, wonders and cultures. Everything what is possible till around steam era...( eternity ) I copied that save game maybe later i back to v37

V37 looks fine except what computer is biulding. Now on v38.5 i'm playing as the Lincoln on priest difficulty, gigantic terra map. Game is more stable i had only on two crashes but again computer is biulding constantly something, here for exemple wise woman ( now he has nine ), I'm too powerfull compare to other 15 players, I have double points as them (40). I think it's cause that computer should biuld more trackers or others so he could hunt animals. Animals are everywhere, they give tremendous bonus to research and food, but computer don't hunt as he should

I'm going to check what second computer is doing, i hope not biulding the same thing all the time.

Anyway, thank you very much for your effort. I can write it again, for me personally it's the best startegy game of all time.

 

[raxo2222]

Did you meant Prince handicap?
Change this one to one or two handicaps higher.

 

[pawel86]

Ok I will change that and try

Thanks for quick answer, anyway even on prince handicap is it normal that computer building constantly the same thing ?

 

[Phoenix_1024]

Hi guys!

I have updated the C2C today (38.1 -> 38.5).
Unfortunately, when I tried to open my previous game, the system said: "save format version is not compatible, version=(0) expected version=(1)!"
Can I continue my previous game?
Is it possible to fix it?

 

[raxo2222]

Hi guys!

I have updated the C2C today (38.1 -> 38.5).
Unfortunately, when I tried to open my previous game, the system said: "save format version is not compatible, version=(0) expected version=(1)!"
Can I continue my previous game?
Is it possible to fix it?

You can't continue games.
This savebreaking trick was introduced as AI was horribly broken in V38.1.
Most likely those bugs would persist if savegame compatibility wasn't broken.

 

[Phoenix_1024]

You can't continue games.
This savebreaking trick was introduced as AI was horribly broken in V38.1.
Most likely those bugs would persist if savegame compatibility wasn't broken.

Thank you for your answer.
But this is really bad news.

 

[Morlark]

It's been 4 days, little feedback.

DH objected that it would break with tradition.

I'm not sure this on its own is adequate protest for me to call off the suggested change, unless many others share DH's qualm about it.

Then please allow me to also add my objection.

This seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is precisely zero benefit to making the proposed rename, and some already drawbacks already acknowledged (however small they may be).

If you wish to remove the useless lower difficulties: great, there's no harm in that. But that doesn't mean that you should also rename the current difficulties. Renaming would not only cause confusion for C2C newbies, as you point out. It would cause confusion for all players, newbies and veterans alike, since this is a new and unprecedented change. It's not just a break with "tradition" – it's a break with a firmly established convention. The only way to be aware of the change is if you happen to read this thread, or the changelog. Sure, it's only a one-time confusion, and easily dispelled. But it's a totally unnecessary confusion, which must be dispelled for each and every player individually.

There are zero drawbacks to retaining the current naming scheme, and therefore no compelling reasons to proceed with a rename.

 

[tmv]

Then please allow me to also add my objection.

This seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is precisely zero benefit to making the proposed rename, and some already drawbacks already acknowledged (however small they may be).

If you wish to remove the useless lower difficulties: great, there's no harm in that. But that doesn't mean that you should also rename the current difficulties. Renaming would not only cause confusion for C2C newbies, as you point out. It would cause confusion for all players, newbies and veterans alike, since this is a new and unprecedented change. It's not just a break with "tradition" – it's a break with a firmly established convention. The only way to be aware of the change is if you happen to read this thread, or the changelog. Sure, it's only a one-time confusion, and easily dispelled. But it's a totally unnecessary confusion, which must be dispelled for each and every player individually.

There are zero drawbacks to retaining the current naming scheme, and therefore no compelling reasons to proceed with a rename.

I think you are confusing this proposal with one Toffer90 made earlier. Now the proposal is to set the AI to Settler, which would make it much more competitive.

 

[Toffer90]

Then please allow me to also add my objection.

This seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is precisely zero benefit to making the proposed rename, and some already drawbacks already acknowledged (however small they may be).

If you wish to remove the useless lower difficulties: great, there's no harm in that. But that doesn't mean that you should also rename the current difficulties. Renaming would not only cause confusion for C2C newbies, as you point out. It would cause confusion for all players, newbies and veterans alike, since this is a new and unprecedented change. It's not just a break with "tradition" – it's a break with a firmly established convention. The only way to be aware of the change is if you happen to read this thread, or the changelog. Sure, it's only a one-time confusion, and easily dispelled. But it's a totally unnecessary confusion, which must be dispelled for each and every player individually.

There are zero drawbacks to retaining the current naming scheme, and therefore no compelling reasons to proceed with a rename.

No renaming was proposed... I proposed that the "Settler" difficulty should be the one where AI and player is on equal footing if both use it.
One would be able to see in custom game setup that the AI play on "Settler" instead of "Noble", so the confusion would not be immense.

Edit: In effect, I proposed that "Settler" should be made as difficult as "Noble" currently is and let difficulty escalate normally from there.

 

[raxo2222]

No renaming was proposed... I proposed that the "Settler" difficulty should be the one where AI and player is on equal footing if both use it.
One would be able to see in custom game setup that the AI play on "Settler" instead of "Noble", so the confusion would not be immense.

Edit: In effect, I proposed that "Settler" should be made as difficult as "Noble" currently is and let difficulty escalate normally from there.

Don't forget to play test Settler AI on Settler and compare that with Noble AI on Noble

By the way research and construction costs are scaled down for player on handicaps below Noble.
Not sure if this should be changed.

 

[Toffer90]

Don't forget to play test Settler AI on Settler and compare that with Noble AI on Noble

If I make the settler xml entry identical to how the Noble xml entry is now, which is implicity what I suggested; there would be no need to do the test games you mention.
Test game experience on these matters are subjective and vary from one game to another on the same settings while the xml content is objective and absolute.

 

[DC0]

Deleting the cache did no good. The ai is only building ONE city and that is it.I even reinstalled C2C and ran through a fast game resulting in the other civs hitting sedentary lifestyle with only the 1 city. I'm afraid this is still messed up. I guess i'm through with this mod until it gets fixed.

In 38.5 game AI is definitely better than in previous versions. It builds many cities. It builds Trained Dogs. It sends Trained Dogs on patrol. It builds Exiles and Ambushers and sends them to disrupt rival civ. It heavily escorts settlers. In most cases. Though I've seen occasionally AI takes a risk and sends out settler without escort. I'm definitely satisfied with AI. Thank you developers!

 

[DC0]

That's standard behavior when they realize they can't afford what they have.

I've noticed similar behavior in one of the civs in my current 38.5 game. I was harassing that civ with all 3 of my Ambushers. I really wanted to have some land for my civ so I had to prevent them from settling it first. I was destroying every Tribe with its escorts immediately after they left security of their cities. So that civ ran out of escorts. But have finished building another tribe. It kept Tribe in a city for some time then disbanded it. Later it started building tribes again, but only after it built escorts.

 

[DC0]

you will get complaints from players on lower game difficulties who feel the AI should be performing better while you're on a harder setting seeing them perform quite well.

Isn't it an intended purpose of lower difficulty setting?

Yeah, I get this. Players should thus play harder levels to account for the AI not being as capable.

Exactly.

 

[Donoya]

Hey, so I finally got to the space age again and saving seems to work, but the satellites can't seem to move from the earth plots to the space ones. I have some just below the space plots and they don't seem to move onto them. Do I still need to unlock a technology? Or maybe attach a unit to them or something? Or is the space thing just not working, yet? I'm playing the 38.5 version.

 

[raxo2222]

Hey, so I finally got to the space age again and saving seems to work, but the satellites can't seem to move from the earth plots to the space ones. I have some just below the space plots and they don't seem to move onto them. Do I still need to unlock a technology? Or maybe attach a unit to them or something? Or is the space thing just not working, yet? I'm playing the 38.5 version.

Upload save.
On what space map you are playing?
Vertical Solar isn't standard space map (that it mixes terrains from multiple planets, and has resources/features in places where they are absolutely useless), so this may be map issue.

Satellites can go only on Orbit terrain (this terrain should border Earth directly).

 

[Morlark]

No renaming was proposed... I proposed that the "Settler" difficulty should be the one where AI and player is on equal footing if both use it.
One would be able to see in custom game setup that the AI play on "Settler" instead of "Noble", so the confusion would not be immense.

Edit: In effect, I proposed that "Settler" should be made as difficult as "Noble" currently is and let difficulty escalate normally from there.

If you're proposing that the "Settler" difficulty should be made as difficult as "Noble" currently is, then in effect you are proposing to rename the "Noble" difficulty to "Settler" (and so on down the further difficulty levels). That's what I meant by "rename". It's functionally the same thing.

Sure, the confusion is not immense. That is true.

But there's still zero benefit to making this change, instead of just deleting the lower difficulty levels, and leaving the "Noble" difficulty (which would then be the lowest difficulty) as the one where the AI is on a par with the player.

This retains the established paradigm, which is a convention shared in common with all Civ games.

If you absolutely want to go ahead with the change, it's not a huge big deal. I just don't see the benefit.