Extra Traits for C2C

Sgtslick said:
can you give me an example of the code so I can duplicate plz :)
Click to expand...
They are added at the end of a trait info:
Code: 
<PropertyManipulators>
  <PropertySource>
    <PropertySourceType>PROPERTYSOURCE_ATTRIBUTE_CONSTANT</PropertySourceType>
    <PropertyType>PROPERTY_CRIME</PropertyType>
    <GameObjectType>GAMEOBJECT_CITY</GameObjectType>
    <RelationType>RELATION_ASSOCIATED</RelationType>
    <AttributeType>ATTRIBUTE_POPULATION</AttributeType>
    <iAmountPerTurn>-2</iAmountPerTurn>
    <Active>
      <Greater>
        <PropertyType>PROPERTY_CRIME</PropertyType>
        <Mult>
          <AttributeType>ATTRIBUTE_POPULATION</AttributeType>
          <Constant>10</Constant>
        </Mult>
      </Greater>
    </Active>
  </PropertySource>
</PropertyManipulators>
This property source reduces crime by 2 per population in all cities of the one with the trait if the city has more than 10 crime per population.
 
RidetheSpiral23 said:
Well thank you for replying to me, it seems a lot of people don't like to get bothered with newbies trying to learn (which is understandable) :D

I am confident with the world builder save files but that's not even difficult at all.
I have done some XML in Civ and also in Total War so I can fumble my way through a lot of the files lol. The DLL I have no clue!

I have made more civs and leaderheads before messing around and I can edit a lot of the XML files with no problem. What would be a good example of what to try to get a grasp of next?
Click to expand...

If you want to learn dll modding, you need to first learn how to setup and compile the source codes. There's some tutorials in the modding section on that but I'm not sure what's accurate or uptodate there... been a while since I got it all setup and since its something I don't have to set it up every time, I've forgotten most of how to get started with it.

Then I can refer you to a C++ tutorial that can help from there.

But, like I said, most importantly, we'd need to really establish a solid plan first.

DH said:
This is an interesting idea. Add in the option of a new leader or new traits on your current leader and you have "dynamic traits". Keep a history of what the leader does and you have "era traits".

Maybe the leader can do more than just GC. Why not increase , or in the city it is in. Probably as missions for a short while.
Click to expand...
Much along the lines of current consideration I think. Some good stuff coming together here.

We need to compile our ideas into a step by step plan of attack at this project. Originally, much of it has been brought up so that it would be maintained in consideration of the way we are shaping the traits now. But from there? What's the 'next' step?

I'd think we would want to then develop a 'dynamic trait' mechanism. It seems the question we have there is mostly about whether ongoing additional traits should be a matter of how the player has played, or if it should just be a bonus selected when the nation achieves a particular national culture level, or something else. Being the next step in the process to get where we want to go, the question of how we should go about this should be addressed now I think.

And in relation to that, would Governing Units develop traits while not currently functioning as active leaderheads? Would traits have a way of 'disappearing' or 'obsoleting'?

Would our current starting traits be overriden as they take improved versions, moving farther from negative values in those traits and bringing further emphasis towards positive values? Or would the negatives intensify along with the positives as you go?

And most importantly, as a team, how do we determine solid answers to these questions in our planning?
 
Okay yeah I'll check out the modding section thank you!

You are definitely right that a concrete plan would be needed if anyone was to get anywhere with this. I'm just going to basically throw out my thoughts and ideas on this whole thing...

Dynamic Traits
Handled as promotions on the governor/leader units.
While I think it would be cool to get them based on play style I don't think it is realistic. Just giving the player options of "trait" promotions would be best I think.
Traits could be upgraded: Spiritual I, Spiritual II, etc. Maybe give them cooler names though :p
Each trait would have a positive and negative and would both scale with the promotion line

Dynamic Leaderheads
The leader unit would be chosen from available governing units either by random or player choice. I would prefer chosen myself.
The leader would die at a semi-random turn amount based upon government civic type as discussed earlier.
The leader unit would get an automatic leader promotion that would grant an overall boost civ stats (culture, science, etc) and a boost to unit strength.

Dynamic Civ Names
Maybe it would be cool to add the option to rename your civ when a new leader takes power?

How are the Leader Promotions Earned?
I like the idea of having them earned by global culture earned.
I think it would also be good to let them earn combat experience to unlock the more militaristic traits if that would be possible?

How are the Leader Traits utilized?
I understand that it would be a lot of hard work to do so but I think it would be best if the leader/governor units only affected the city that they were in.
 
How would the mod handle the naming of said leader units? Would it be up to the player, or would it work similarly to the Great People where historical names are randomly assigned to the character regardless of nation (ex: Albert Einstein in China).

Is it possible to code the names by faction? If so, I'd be happy to help research governor/leader names for different civs. I'm a hopeless modder, but I did study history at university/am a social studies teacher in RL, so I can research, and I've been wanting to get more involved with the Civ community.

I LOVE this idea. It would add some seriously interesting game mechanics.
 
RidetheSpiral23 said:
Okay yeah I'll check out the modding section thank you!

You are definitely right that a concrete plan would be needed if anyone was to get anywhere with this. I'm just going to basically throw out my thoughts and ideas on this whole thing...

Dynamic Traits
Handled as promotions on the governor/leader units.
This would be quite easily done for me I think. Tags could be added to define the promo 'type' as a 'Trait' promo, which would be earned in a different manner to the usual Promotion type. I just set up a few new types today actually so going back through to set this up would be one of the easiest things we're suggesting here for me. Then the Leaderhead 'traits' are tied to the 'trait promos' on the actual Leaderhead Unit. That might be a bit tricky, but not at all impossible. Could certainly take some trial and error to work out all the natural bugs this would deliver in the process, and as a result of the ensuing complexity, making this system optional would be a real b****! But yeah, I can see how that could come together nicely. In fact, it could interact with some other elements I'm working on now in VERY interesting ways.

While I think it would be cool to get them based on play style I don't think it is realistic. Just giving the player options of "trait" promotions would be best I think.
Agreed completely!

Traits could be upgraded: Spiritual I, Spiritual II, etc. Maybe give them cooler names though :p
Sometimes simplicity is best. Such a system would overwhelm us with a quest to find ever more labels and before you know it we're overlapping all over the place with same-named references to different things, making for a confusing mess.

Each trait would have a positive and negative and would both scale with the promotion line
My preference here would be that advancements in a trait line override the previous (which is something I'm setting up now for other kinds of promos so it would tie in perfectly with the current project anyways) and we see, as we go, a gradual extraction of the 'negativity'. If we choose to adopt this approach, we should make the current traits we're developing now balance out negative and positives internally.

Dynamic Leaderheads
The leader unit would be chosen from available governing units either by random or player choice. I would prefer chosen myself.
Agreed on both points.
The leader would die at a semi-random turn amount based upon government civic type as discussed earlier.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to extend leader lifespans beyond any RL equivalent to make it work. Base on turns rather than years.
The leader unit would get an automatic leader promotion that would grant an overall boost civ stats (culture, science, etc) and a boost to unit strength.
This needs more definition I think.

Dynamic Civ Names
Maybe it would be cool to add the option to rename your civ when a new leader takes power?
The coding on this would be a nightmare (for me at least) as it would require a lot of python. And I'm wondering about the purpose. I think this overlaps with a point I'm about to make below.

How are the Leader Promotions Earned?
I like the idea of having them earned by global culture earned.
The trick here would be tying the Civ's global culture value to the unit and then back again to the Leaderhead definition. A bit of coding gymnastics but I think its possible.
I think it would also be good to let them earn combat experience to unlock the more militaristic traits if that would be possible?
Governing Units would be a combat class, as would Leaderhead. These would unlock some promotion options there. It would certainly make it more rational why we so commonly vote military heroes into the Presidency.

How are the Leader Traits utilized?
I understand that it would be a lot of hard work to do so but I think it would be best if the leader/governor units only affected the city that they were in.
IMO, The traits of the Leaderhead itself should affect the entire nation, while mere Governing Units would influence the cities they are in, but we could also establish a command range that could extend this influence, and be affected by some buildings located in the plot they reside in, like the Forbidden Palace extending the command range +12 plots out for example.
Click to expand...

thecougarbear said:
How would the mod handle the naming of said leader units? Would it be up to the player, or would it work similarly to the Great People where historical names are randomly assigned to the character regardless of nation (ex: Albert Einstein in China).

Is it possible to code the names by faction? If so, I'd be happy to help research governor/leader names for different civs. I'm a hopeless modder, but I did study history at university/am a social studies teacher in RL, so I can research, and I've been wanting to get more involved with the Civ community.

I LOVE this idea. It would add some seriously interesting game mechanics.
Click to expand...
It would really be helpful to have someone like yourself doing this kind of support work.

This concept ties in with the idea I'd been tossing around about 'adopting a Culture' like we currently adopt religions. If you have access to a culture resource, you could adopt that culture as your civ's culture, causing some anarchy period and giving some unique benefits based on the culture definitions.

In addition, this would be where names of birthed Governing units would stem from. But the task of listing names in this manner would not be for the faint of heart. We have a HUGE list of Cultures presently, and we'd have to supply an enormous list of names for each Culture to play it off correctly I think.

We'd also have to establish generic names for the base unadopted culture status that the game would start in. Maybe we need to define early cultures/tribes of early man, and require that one be selected out the gate, giving automatic free access to that culture resource, rather than our current selections that attempt to capture all cultures that have ever been, despite the fact that we develop culture as we go now.

Doing it this way, we'd have to define cultures that can be selected based on starting era too.

And that makes the 'Adopt Cultures' project really need to come first in development.
 
I'd be reluctant to merge this in to C2C. It would take a lot of extra thought to make it work with additional traits, and I really don't like how traits go away over time, especially if we are going to work towards leaders that exist on the map. Just preference is all. What is your opinion?
 
Does anyone want to help rewrite the traitspedia_civ4gametext.xml

Need to do NOMAD, AGRICULTURAL, SEAFARING, DECEIVER, SCIENTIFIC, HUMANITARIAN, PROGRESSIST, POLITICIAN.

This is the format:

Spoiler :
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_TRAIT_PROTECTIVE_PEDIA</Tag>
<English>This is another new trait introduced by the Warlords expansion pack, and doesn't seem to be very well-thought out. The fact that I consider this one of the weakest traits should not come as a surprise, since that's an opinion shared by most players--though I grant that Protective does have its fans.[PARAGRAPH:1]

High-Priority Technologies[\H1][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_ARCHERY]Archery[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_MASONRY]Masonry[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_POLYTHEISM]Polytheism[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_SAILING]Sailing[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_FEUDALISM]Feudalism[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_MACHINERY]Machinery[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_ENGINEERING]Engineering[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_GUNPOWDER]Gunpowder[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_CHEMISTRY]Chemistry[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_RIFLING]Rifling[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=TECH_ASSEMBLY_LINE]Assembly Line[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1]

Useful Wonders[\H1][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=BUILDING_TEMPLE_OF_ARTEMIS]The Temple of Artemis[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=BUILDING_GREAT_LIGHTHOUSE]The Great Lighthouse[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=BUILDING_CHICHEN_ITZA]Chichen Itza[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1]

Best Buildings[\H1][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=BUILDING_BARRACKS]Barracks[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=BUILDING_WALLS]Walls[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=BUILDING_CASTLE]Castle[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1]

Useful Civics[\H1][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=CIVIC_VASSALAGE]Vassalage[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1][ICON_BULLET][LINK=CIVIC_THEOCRACY]Theocracy[\LINK][PARAGRAPH:1]

How to Use It[\H1][PARAGRAPH:1]While Protective is weak, it isn't without its uses. When you capture a city, your freely-promoted units are better equipped to defend your new possession, which is highly likely to come under a counter-attack. In fact, your gunpowder units can potentially perform double-duty as both attackers and defenders. (Most archery units, however, are weak attackers and are best used on defense only.)[PARAGRAPH:1]If you have a source of stone, the walls and castles are even cheaper, making them less of a burden to build. Combined with wonders like the Temple of Artemis and the Great Lighthouse, you could make Protective's cheap castles part of a trade route economy, which can be very helpful in the mid-game period. You can also use the cheap castles to supplement espionage in BtS. In fact, some players have begun playing an EP, or "Espionage Economy", where the science slider is turned down to 0% after Alphabet and most remaining technologies are acquired through tech-stealing.[PARAGRAPH:1]The civilization that probably benefits the most from the trait is China, because its UU is one of the best Archery units in the game--the Cho-Ko-Nu, which can and should be used as an attacking unit. Drill I just enhances its power, giving it an additional first strike chance beyond its 2 free first strikes.[PARAGRAPH:1]

The Downside[\H1][PARAGRAPH:1]The problem with the Protective trait is that it's largely defensive in nature. The free City Garrison promotion is only useful when units are under attack while in a city. Walls and castles--which are pretty cheap to begin with, making their double production speed less appealing--are likewise only useful when you're under attack. Only the free Drill I promotion is an attacking promotion, but how often do you attack with archery units? Unless they're Cho-Ko- Nus, of course. (Though it can be beneficial to your more aggressive gunpowder units.)[PARAGRAPH:1]The problem with playing defensively in Civilization IV is that the AI is so fond of pillaging. If your units cower behind city walls, the AI will gleefully send your economy spiraling down into ruin by pillaging every tile improvement in sight. Your units have to venture out of your cities to defend your territory, which makes walls and castles next to useless--ditto with the City Garrison promotion.[PARAGRA

PH:1]In many ways, the Protective trait seems to have been added more to benefit the AI than the human player. The AI prefers to play defensively for the most part, so Protective suits its programming. Any human player will tell you that going up against Protective Longbowmen, fortified in a city on a hill with a castle and walls, can be intimidating--though certainly not insurmountable. Just bring more Trebuchets to the party.</English>



Obviously it can't be done just yet until the features of each trait are finalised (Should be in around a week). PM me if your interested plz

 
Thunderbrd said:
It would really be helpful to have someone like yourself doing this kind of support work.

This concept ties in with the idea I'd been tossing around about 'adopting a Culture' like we currently adopt religions. If you have access to a culture resource, you could adopt that culture as your civ's culture, causing some anarchy period and giving some unique benefits based on the culture definitions.

In addition, this would be where names of birthed Governing units would stem from. But the task of listing names in this manner would not be for the faint of heart. We have a HUGE list of Cultures presently, and we'd have to supply an enormous list of names for each Culture to play it off correctly I think.

We'd also have to establish generic names for the base unadopted culture status that the game would start in. Maybe we need to define early cultures/tribes of early man, and require that one be selected out the gate, giving automatic free access to that culture resource, rather than our current selections that attempt to capture all cultures that have ever been, despite the fact that we develop culture as we go now.

Doing it this way, we'd have to define cultures that can be selected based on starting era too.

And that makes the 'Adopt Cultures' project really need to come first in development.
Click to expand...

I love this adopting a culture idea! You could just have a pool of news for each of the starting cultures (european, african etc...). I could start pulling some names here and there as I do some research for my Iron Age scenario.

I'm glad that we agree on a lot of the stuff above too. I'm a little confused on how you are describing the trait lines though. So no progression in the bonus like Creative I, II etc? You pick another trait and it erases the current trait? I'm just kinda confused on how you mean that :p
 
RidetheSpiral23 said:
I'm a little confused on how you are describing the trait lines though. So no progression in the bonus like Creative I, II etc? You pick another trait and it erases the current trait? I'm just kinda confused on how you mean that :p
Click to expand...
No, there'd be progression. It'd just overwrite the previous. Thus when you take Creative II, it replaces Creative I. I'm currently working on this for other lines of promotions, including Combat, Flanking, Shock, etc... With such a method established, its easier to 'take away' what the previous one added, and in this situation, that makes sense to do so that the farther you get into, say the Creative line, you would suffer less of the negative elements Creative I starts with and enhance its benefits, perhaps even introducing new ones as you go.
 
Thunderbrd said:
No, there'd be progression. It'd just overwrite the previous. Thus when you take Creative II, it replaces Creative I. I'm currently working on this for other lines of promotions, including Combat, Flanking, Shock, etc... With such a method established, its easier to 'take away' what the previous one added, and in this situation, that makes sense to do so that the farther you get into, say the Creative line, you would suffer less of the negative elements Creative I starts with and enhance its benefits, perhaps even introducing new ones as you go.
Click to expand...

That's actually what I mean in my original post that you quoted, so I'm glad we are thinking along the same lines!

For example:

You pick Cultivated (Creative I) first and then you earn another promotion and choice to take the next step of culture which could be Poetic (Creative II).

The creative line could have a negative trait of maybe -25% military production or what ever it may be. That would reduce each time the unit promotes in the Creative line.

The creative line would just increase in how much extra percentage of culture you as you replace it with the better culture promotions.

Possible other "bonuses" further on in the promotion line could be very unique. Say maybe no anarchy when you change your state culture :D
 
Thunderbrd said:
It would really be helpful to have someone like yourself doing this kind of support work.

This concept ties in with the idea I'd been tossing around about 'adopting a Culture' like we currently adopt religions. If you have access to a culture resource, you could adopt that culture as your civ's culture, causing some anarchy period and giving some unique benefits based on the culture definitions.

In addition, this would be where names of birthed Governing units would stem from. But the task of listing names in this manner would not be for the faint of heart. We have a HUGE list of Cultures presently, and we'd have to supply an enormous list of names for each Culture to play it off correctly I think.

We'd also have to establish generic names for the base unadopted culture status that the game would start in. Maybe we need to define early cultures/tribes of early man, and require that one be selected out the gate, giving automatic free access to that culture resource, rather than our current selections that attempt to capture all cultures that have ever been, despite the fact that we develop culture as we go now.

Doing it this way, we'd have to define cultures that can be selected based on starting era too.

And that makes the 'Adopt Cultures' project really need to come first in development.
Click to expand...

Great!

A few questions: Would the leaders be tied to certain civs or certain cultures?
Would the traits be generated randomly, dynamically based on human play style, or tied to specific leaders?
 
thecougarbear said:
Great!

A few questions: Would the leaders be tied to certain civs or certain cultures?
Would the traits be generated randomly, dynamically based on human play style, or tied to specific leaders?
Click to expand...

I think it would be best to wait and see what Thundebrd thinks but I will throw in my thoughts about.

I would think the leaders would be tied to the culture. It would work best with the new culture system he has mentioned.

Play style is just to much work to get into. Random would just be annoying in my opinion. Players would want some sort of control over their leader traits, hence the promotion system Thunderbrd was talking abouut.

Basically what would be required of you would be to just get a list of accurate leader names for that culture. I wouldn't include anyone who wasn't a leader. Obviously it will be difficult with some of the cultures so names may have to be created in the right "flavor".
 
According to the other proposals that seem to be in agreement on so far, I agree that the leader name lists would need to stem from cultures. However, it could collect all the lists of all the culture resources the civ has collected. And the leaders on a given culture list could operate a little better if their culture was adopted while they are acting leaderhead. (maybe adjusts the amount of global culture earnings required for the next trait upgrade.)

Agreed that Playstyle would be too much to get into. I'm not thinking I like 'Random' either. I'm a bit torn between predefined traits based on WHO the name stems from and having 'choice'. For initial traits, I'm not sure that having full choice when they spawn is a good idea. Perhaps each should have a pre-set selection of beginning traits. You can always shape them further as you go. But one of the neat things about this system could be constantly having to adapt your playstyle to your new leader's new abilities and flaws. Alternatively, for more classic Civ players, an option could guide the system to always spawn them with the same starting traits as you selected in your beginning leader.

I'm not sure it would be necessary to only keep to leaders that existed where names are concerned. Some cultures probably don't have an exhaustive enough list to go about it this way. So other noteworthies, those who could've been leaders but weren't, and so on should be included, and in some cases, we'll just have to get some names based on cultural standards, even more from outright imagination if even that is impossible to find references for.

Most importantly, they'll each need their own art panel for the leaderhead potential. Some cultures could probably historically only pull up a couple, if any, known leaders, so we can't restrict ourselves in this manner. If we're going to have preset traits on them, it would be most important to make sure all combinations are honored, with some due given to the classic leader styles of that particular culture for more common traits that appear.

This gets into the realm of asking the question, how, exactly will new governing units be generated? Will it vary on civic? Will they only come into play when the nation needs a leader? Do we need to consider 'family lines' here? (Princes and Princess born etc...) Would it work like the way GPs are born? Are they built like heroes? Are GPs/Heroes going to be convertable to Governing Units? Any other ideas here?
 
I'm sure there is but I'm not sure how to best find it... Hydro would know. And we're drawing up a spreadsheet database that would make finding that list a bit easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlapstickMojo
C2C Developer Podcast Interview
Replies
9
Views
1K
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
BlueTemplar
What can be a Culture requirement ?
Replies
2
Views
282
BlueTemplar
BlueTemplar
L
Little improvements with AI using settlers (dev)
Replies
4
Views
792
Leodim
L
Toffer90
  • Sticky
v43.1 patch
2
Replies
23
Views
9K
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
Blazenclaw
SVN 11502 Culture "Overhaul" Feedback
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Blazenclaw
Blazenclaw
Top Bottom