Psyringe: I think its necessary that I reply to your post item by item, and sum up afterwards:
Ysevo: I'm a bit reluctant to answer to your post because, hrmmm, how to put it ... it seems to me that you lack some rather basic skills in managing Civ4 as well as Windows as well as these forums - which is not a problem per se, as you can of course learn, but it won't be easy if you blame the game for the things that you don't understand (yet). On the other hand, I may be very wrong in the assessment above, so I'll give it a try.
Well, I do think your assessment is wrong, but more to the point, why assess me _ or anyone _ at all? I checked the Forum Rules, and there's nothing about having to be a certain technical level in order to participate in this thread and forum. I'm able to stick the Civ4 DVD in the drive and play. As far as I'm aware, those are the only requirements for asking questions in here: the thread intro even says not to worry about whether the question has been previously asked.
As for "blaming the game" _ I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion; I'm not going to waste time arguing on that one. But I'll just say this _ *if * you've got the idea (I'm not saying you have) that I hate the game: well, I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be here: I'd be off on a website called something like IHateCiv4.com _ if there is such a thing. Or I'd have just stopped playing. But I didn't.
For question about how the game works or how to play it, use the general Civ4 forum or the strategy forum. For questions about modding, the "Creation and Customization" forum is the right place.
_ Fair enough; thanks.
Aren't their some guides for this in the "Creation and Customization" Forum? Last time I checked, it had a "tutorials" subsection specifically for this. Personally, however, I just use the forum's search function if I need information. Another good place to find information is the Modiki (there's a link to it in the forum's top bar).
_ Thanks for that too.
Actually I've never seen a modding scene with so many explicit tutorials as this one, so it's a bit surprising to me that someone doesn't find them.
_ I hadnt started looking when I asked the question, because I wanted to get feedback first. But yes, thats fine.
Ummm ... why are you opening files with Internet Explorer (the next question would be why you use IE at all)? Why not just use Notepad, or any better text editor, like Notepad++? I mean, it's perfectly natural and easy to open a yet-unknown filetype with Notepad to see which kind of data it actually contains, and it's easy to tell Windows to use Notepad as the default editor for XML files. So why are you using IE?
_ I double-clicked the XML files and IExplorer is what opened. So naturally I thought it was the appropriate program. When I viewed "Source" (which in this case opens Notepad) I was able to edit. But yes, I've no objection to using Notepad directly.
Of course your machine can open .py files. Notepad comes with every Windows version for more than a decade now. And if you want color-coding, you can always install another editor. Personally I'm using Notepad++, but Python is recognized by so many editors that you can choose many others.
_ OK, what I *meant* to say was I double-clicked the .py files and they didnt open _ i.e. there isnt a default application for them on my machine. But again, I've no objection to using Notepad (and yes, setting it as default).
(Mostly) everyone running Civ4 is also running Windows. Windows comes with Notepad. Python and XML files are easily edited with Notepad. Where's the room for puzzlement?
The only "knowledge" necessary is that you _can_ use Notepad to open files with extensions that aren't yet bound to it, but that's a very basic Windows operation and nothing that they need to specifically spell out, imho. It's even explained in the Windows help system that every Windows user has on his machine.
_ Well, I think Ive explained above about double-clicking, expecting default applications (OK, mistakenly). So OK, Notepad it is. All this could have been covered by saying Use Notepad for XML and Python files _ as other posts have already said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ysevo
As Civ4 is designed to run on Windows XP, I would have thought that any XP-user should find Python and XML files as accessible as the manual-writers expect. My machine is a typical Win XP home laptop _ except that I dont have MS Office (Ive MS Works, which
generally does what I need). I assume the absence of Office isnt the problem ?
Erm ... no. Actually it's a bit beyond me why you think that a behemoth like MS Office (which I wouldn't recommend to anyone) is necessary to read data for programming formats. There's nothing that connects programming languages (like Python) to MS Office, so I really don't see where you got this idea from. You don't need Office. You don't need anything except plain simple Notepad, which you of course have on your machine, which is why every user _does_ have access to a tool for modifying these files.
That's the basic problem here, I think: Your problem is that you somehow totally ignore the easiest and most obvious solution (check the file with Notepad), go off on some weird tangent thinking about MS Office (which has nothing at all to do with the issue), and blame the game (or the manual) for your incapacity of using one of the most simple Windows tools to solve your "problem". That's also the reason why some of the replies that you got were less than polite.
I didnt say Im using, or want to use, MS Office. How can I, when (as I already said) I dont *have* it? My exact words (which you have in front of you in the quotation above) were "I assume the absence of Office isnt the problem ?"
I was describing the general Windows set-up of my laptop, saying that its a typical one. But (I think) many more people use MS Office than use MS Works (which is whats on my present machine). So in that sense, my general set-up is *not* typical.
But at no point did I say that MS Office (or indeed, MS Works either) *should* be used to edit XML or Python or any other aspect of Civ4. I offered no opinion. My whole purpose was to *ask* what people *are* using, and to give a rough idea of my own Windows set-up _ *in case* that helped. It was a question, and this thread is for questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ysevo
_ I agree, but no: I *am* using siege, knocking down the bonus before tackling the units inside. What I've found, though, is that in practise, they endure one bombardment then blow hell out of my artillery or catapults (of course they've to kill the infantry/cavalry guarding them first).
The obvious lesson to be learned from this is, of course, to either use more siege or bring more guards. Or which lesson do you draw from your own example?
_ I had worked that much out for myself, strangely enough. Obviously Im using as much to attack the city as general costs permit (permit IMO, that is _ given your accusation below of false assumptions of competence, I guess I should stress that Im not claiming to be a Civ4 economic wizard).
Since you ask, the lesson Ive drawn (for the present, at least, while Im on Noble-going-on-Prince level) is to try to avoid attacking well-defended cities and instead sabotage as many nearby enemy improvements and roads as possible. Apart from disrupting the city's (and empires) resources, this sometimes provokes its units to come out and theyre thus easier to kill _ especially if they attack mine (OK, thats subject to what the particular units are, etc.). Plus their coming out weakens the citys defence, of course.
But as I originally said _ Civ4 *seems* to favour defence over attack (well, so far, for me, anyway). As I said before _ this worked the other way around as well, when it was me defending the city: even when my empire was overwhelmed, I slaughtered heaps of besiegers, and when the citys defenders were forced outside (to defend key resources) direct attack, on average, worked less well than making a stand on terrain with a good defence bonus.
Again, thats a generalization subject to what the particular units are (and the layout of the terrain _ obviously, for example, its no use sending a super-defender to stand happily on the only hill for miles around if the enemy have plenty of flat space to un-sportingly ignore him and wallop the city). Also, Im still experimenting a lot with combining different promotions, so thats a variable factor for the future as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ysevo
_ Well, don't get me wrong _ I've nothing against them putting in African civs. In fact, now that you mention it, I think they shouldn't have left out the Zulu (who were in Civ2) _ I'd have no problem with both Zulus *and* Mali being there.
I'm sorry, but you definitely know nothing about Mali. That's not a shame, the knowledge that they once were among the leading civilizations on the African continent isn't exactly taught in schools.
_ Im sorry, but youre in no position to comment on my historical knowledge. In fact, as Civ4 itself includes a biography of Kankan Moussa, it should be obvious that anyone whos read it, by definition, must now know *something* about Mali, even if theyd never heard of it before using Civ4. Which, as it happens, I had.
However, complaining about the inclusion of Mali (a dominant force in Northwest Africa) and then saying it's okay to include when the Zulus (which are historically of very little impact, had control of a very small region, and are just a bit more known because they won a couple of battles in Southern Africa) is baffling.
_ I did *not* say it's OK to include Mali *only* if the Zulus are there _ as if !! Why would I, or anyone, *want* to say such a thing?!
You need to read my 2nd post (#18326, Sep 23rd, page 917) in context, and the 1st (#18292, Sep 15th, page 915) as well. I was replying to someone who said "your argument would also apply to the Zulu", and that made me concerned that I might have come across as wanting to exclude African civs. So I emphasised that I'm perfectly fine with Mali and the Zulu being in the game.
In any case, it is _absolutely okay_ if you don't know much about history - but then you really shouldn't try to make arguments about Mali.
I am perfectly entitled (and qualified) to argue about Mali's history if I want to. Its called free speech.
However, in this case I was not arguing about Mali *per se*. My point was essentially about the exclusion of the Celts (from the first Civ4 version). In my first post, I expressed surprise that a world historical strategy game should include Mali when it excludes the Celts. I used the phrase "With all due respect to Mali" _ perhaps you didnt believe I meant that, but thats not my problem.
I wasn't saying one was better (or more interesting historically) than the other _ I simply said that, in terms of how *world* history *happened*, the Celts *happened* to be *where* the crucial action was, that permanently affected the *whole world* in the *long term*. (Actually, with mostly bad results for themselves.) Mali wasn't: its role, whether in specific African history, or in that of the medieval Islamic world, is irrelevant to my point. I would make similar arguments for the inclusion of the Babylonians and/or Carthaginians.
I saw a post which pointed out that Majapahit has as good a claim, in world-history terms, to be in the game, as Mali _ but it isn't. Look, I'm not saying such-and-such-a-civ should or shouldn't be there _ all I'm saying is, in general, Civ4, like its predecessors, mainly chooses civilizations who either were (a) in charge of *world* history for a time, or were (b) major obstacles or rivals to those in category (a). The Carthaginians and Celts were in (b), in relation to Romes time in (a) _ so I was surprised at their initial exclusion.
I'm amazed I have to spell out what my post says _ when it actually
says it. Ah well, etc
(as you say below).
If you don't even know the term "vanilla" ... ah, well.
Well, pardon me all over the place !!
As I said, it's absolutely okay to know very little. Everyone started small somewhere. But for someone who knows so little, your attitude seems ... off. Sorry.
And you dont think theres anything off about the arrogant, condescending tone in your paragraph above ?
That seems to be the basic problem. You seem to lack very basic understanding in many areas (Civ4, Windows, forum usage, basic terminology), yet behave as someone who understands these things perfectly well. As a result, you make a lot of mistakes, and come across very badly. Yet, when called on this, you go defensive, cling to your false assumptions of competence that you don't yet have, and make snide remarks to the people who criticized you.
On the areas you mention _
(a) Windows: It's nonsense to accuse anyone who routinely uses a computer of knowing nothing about Windows. In order to register on this forum I used Windows. Most people who use computers use Windows, these days _ even those who use a different OS usually know *something* about Windows. If I lack "basic understanding" of Windows, then by your logic, the millions who (like me) use it every day to send e-mails, use the Net, process documents, and/or listen to Windows Media Player, don't have "basic understanding" of Windows. So what *is* their level (and mine)? Sub-human? Not a good attitude, anyway.
Contrary to what you say, I made no claim about my Windows knowledge level _ good, bad or indifferent. As it happens, I've been using Windows ever since Win 3.11 and Win95, in work, study and leisure _ my lack of basic Windows would be news to my various supervisors. Some perfectly intelligent people regard me as more clued-in w.r.t. computers than themselves; some know heaps more.
I'm not going into details because (i) it isn't what this forum is for;
(ii) I don't need to prove myself to you; and
(iii) I'm not willing to quote details of my personal background.
(b) Civ4: at the end of my last post, I gave an account of my state of knowledge of Civ4 (roughly, in terms of actual game-play _ win all the time on "Noble", lost a game on "Prince") so I don't see how that comes across as claiming knowledge I don't have.
(c) re forum usage, I haven't been a contributor to a Civ4 forum before (though I have browsed sites from time to time for Civ generally, over the years) but I have been on forums on other topics. Ive never pretended otherwise.
(d) "basic terminology" _ well, "basic" to whom ? I know plenty of people who are into strategy games (e.g. Civ, MTW, Sudden Strike, Age Of Empires) but who wouldn't know the jargon in a particular forum, or indeed across the Net. Believe it or not, many people like to play computer games for *fun* _ it isn't compulsory to be an I.T. expert first. And it certainly isn't compulsory to put up with rudeness or condescension, whatever one's level of knowledge.
(e) re "snide remarks": I made no snide remarks _ I made two restrained comments about rudeness by one or two members: I had no problem with their Civ4 and technical points (even those arguing against my first post), only with personal remarks. (And in fairness to those people, they appear to have moved on, so why do *you* bring it up?) Your own post has a lot of condescension and personal remarks mixed in with a *very small amount* of what this thread *should* be for: Civ4 questions and answers. How do you expect anyone with the slightest self-esteem to react ?
Frankly, moderators on other forums I've been on would have been down on such stuff like a ton of bricks. But let me say _ the *majority* of people in here have treated me perfectly politely (even when disagreeing), and from what I can see, are just as knowledgeable, if not more, than the few who havent.
That's exactly the reason why I'm very skeptical if my answers above will actually help you. But you undeniably put a lot of effort in your post, so I thought it's worth a try.
_ Well, Ive expressed thanks where appropriate: i.e. for the few bits of actual *information*, mostly at the beginning. If youre *genuinely* trying to help, then Im sorry that the communication isnt coming across.
However, I can only go by what is actually *written*, and from the words on the screen, Im afraid you seem to be playing a game (and Im not talking Civ4 or computers here) whereby if I dont be a good little victim and swallow rude, patronising comments without reply, Im being snide or defensive (a belittling and patronising term in itself). Well, I see right through that, so _ no deal.
I find it hard to understand what the point of your post was. It gives little hard info that other people hadn't already given _ and their replies were polite, precise, and free of self-righteous condescending personal remarks. I could go on a forum debating the manufacture of bulldozers (if there is such a thing), collect a few key words from previous posts there, and then bluff my way through a post like yours. Im not saying youre actually *doing* that, but for all the new info your post has, you might as well be.
You start off with all this blather about my "lack of basic understanding" on everything: so OK, the logical conclusion *should* be that you know lots more. Well, if you do, you dont demonstrate it. All I get is a series of rants about what *I'm* supposedly doing wrong.
Heres a tip _ if you genuinely want to *teach* anyone anything, dont talk to them as if theyre stupid. In terms of hard information, most of your post could have been condensed into the words "Use Notepad for both XML and Python" _ which others had already said. In fewer, politer, and more informative words.
And then theres your way-off-the-charts-bizarre comment on Mali. Your attack on me is based on a total mis-reading of this topic in my previous posts, and despite your implied claim to know more about the history than me, you don't actually *say* anything about it that you couldn't have got from the Civ4 write-ups on the Malien Empire and Kankan Moussa. You may indeed know lots more, but no-one would know that from your post. On this, as on the rest of your post, its all argumenta ad hominem (i.e. me) rather than (as it should be) argumenta ad rem.
I'm not looking to make an enemy or start an online feud. But you can't "talk down" to me in the manner of your last post and expect me not to stand up to you. I'm sorry for anyone else reading this who feels it's irrelevant or taking up too much space _ it was not by my wish.
