1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Éa, The Ageless and the Divine (phase 2, alpha)

Discussion in 'Éa Fantasy Mod Project' started by Pazyryk, Dec 21, 2012.

  1. DharmaMcLaren

    DharmaMcLaren Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    213
    Location:
    Scotland
    To borrow an idea from Fall from Heaven, you could have your units' weapons upgrade to the best available metal - they get a copper weapons, iron weapons, or mithril weapons upgrade when they're constructed.

    Another system that could operate at the same time would be changing the way resource dependencies on units work. At the moment, if you have one iron you can train one swordsman. How about, instead of that, you train one 'soldier', and if you have one iron you can give him an iron sword upgrade (and he's then a 'swordsman' - I'm not sure if it's possible, but you could even make the promotion change the unit name). If you have two iron, you can train one soldier and give him an iron sword upgrade and an iron armour upgrade and get a stronger 'heavy swordsman'. The same principle could apply to other types of unit - give a fighter an iron spear upgrade for a spearman, iron spear and iron armour for heavy spearman; train a 'horseman' and give him a yew bow upgrade and iron armour upgrade for a 'heavy horse archer'. That might be a bit complicated to implement, but it would make unit production far more flexible, which would lend an interesting strategic element to the game - the strongest metals might not always be the most strategically sound choice, e.g. an archer with a yew bow, iron arrowheads, and no armour should be more mobile than one with a yew bow, iron arrowheads and iron armour; the former would be better for fighting a guerilla war against an invading army, while the latter would be better for bombarding a city during an invasion.

    While we're talking about resources, too, I think a more realistic/interesting/diverse metallurgy system might be worthwhile. That is, if you have copper, you can make copper weapons and armour; if you have copper and tin (a new resource), you can make bronze weapons and armour; if you have iron, you can make iron weapons and armour; if you have iron and coal (a new resource, or perhaps marble to stand in for flux) you can make steel weapons and armour, etc. That way, a civ bent on conquest would increase its capacity for conquest as it acquired new resources, and on the other hand, a small defensive civ could, if it could obtain the right resources through trade or just a lucky starting position, fend off an attack from a bigger, less resourceful neighbour.

    Historically, such differences in available metals were crucial to the expansion and decline of cultures. The Greeks suffered terribly from a lack of bronze during Rome's ascendancy due to depletion of their tin mines; bronze weapons and armour are actually more effective than iron and much closer to steel in effectiveness than iron. The Greeks lacked iron in abundance while the Romans didn't, the Romans used some of their iron to make steel, and that gave the Romans an advantage in equipping their armies. If the Greeks had had iron but couldn't have made it into steel, they'd still have been better off than if they'd been using copper weapons; if the Romans had has no steel weapons and showed up with only iron weapons and the Greeks still had bronze, the bronze armour and shields of their phalanxes would have been much better at deflecting the iron swords of the Romans.

    You can see that it's far more complex than just copper vs. iron/bronze vs. steel; it's not just which metal you have, but which combination of metals you have that's really important. Tin alone is very weak, copper alone is weak, iron alone is weak, iron and tin is useless, copper and tin is good, copper and flux and coal is useless, tin and flux and coal is useless, iron and flux and coal is best.

    One of the major reasons for the Roman conquest of Britain was to acquire its tin for bronze smelting, even with the availability of steel. The most dramatic example is probably the advantage that steel gave the Spaniards over the Inca - a few hundred conquistadors with steel weapons (and some horses) were consistently able to defeat the most successful armies in the Pre-Columbian Americas while outnumbered by up to a hundred Inca to every one Spaniard. A civ that lacked access to metals (as the Inca did) would be a terrible disadvantage compared to one that didn't.

    That would set up a more interesting colonial dynamic, I think. If you were playing on a Continents map and you found your continent empty of metals, or with only copper available, or only copper and tin, you'd know that sooner or later ships were going to arrive from a civ with steel weapons and armour. Of course, the player would have the benefit of foreknowledge, and could thus plan in advance for the arrival of better equipped enemies (by focusing on light, fast, ranged units, for example), which the Inca couldn't until it was too late.

    Since agrarianism seems to focus on efficiency of production, it could have an advantage over pantheism (if it needed one for balance) if it enabled buildings or improvements that slightly increase strategic resource yields - say, a shaft/pit mine on iron would yield more iron than either a standard mine or wildlands, or an industrial ironworks would grant one extra iron for every two or three or four available. (As a side-note, the Haya people of Africa provide an example of low-tech steel forging several centuries before Europeans were able to produce steel of a similar quality, involving the burning of mud and grass in an open hearth. That might be a good analogue for the pantheist method.)
     
  2. Calavente

    Calavente Richard's voice

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    France
    yup, me bargin in.
    I loved this discussion about differentiating luxery ressources.
    however linking it all to ships might be too much. .. but that's the second point:

    what if luxury ressources worked as "strategic ressource":
    then I suppose that either theres a way to give 2 different sub-resources to a "mother" one or not.

    in the case that you can :
    allow different specialization, thus you can choose how to use citrus / wool ...etc (but might be too complicated.. the specialisation already happen due to the tech choics you are forced to make)

    here come example that I don't know if they are practicable:
    Spoiler :


    1citrus tree gives 2-10 citrus.
    citrus gives :
    - civ-wide : 1 happy per citrus (not much, but not negligible)
    - +1happy in each winery, or +1gold..Etc
    - +1% str per citrus to naval units after sailing (represents a better health of the sailors for long-distance units) (or +5% or 10% str.. I won't care) (or only a global +10% str whatever the number of citrus)
    (or better : 10% per citrus divided by number of naval unit, with a max of 10% : liked a simplification of the "global yield" of Master Of Mana )


    flax/coton :
    -tailor enables clothes : +1 happy (as per usual)
    -gives +25% to sailships construction (even fishing ships) (give 25% to ships from timber resource)
    -flax/coton gives +5% per flax / coton toward sailing and .... another tech

    sheep :
    happy per usual
    further gives a + 1%str (cumulative) per wool in desert / tundra

    fur :
    happy per usual
    -+2% str cumulative in tundra only
    -allow building "trapper hut" in city if tundra is present on the BFC: +3f (effectively 1pop, but limited to cities with snow/tundra in the BFC) (or +1f per fur?) : it shows that even the city people are more comfortable and can have an easier life in those cold lands using furs)

    Incense :
    happy per usual
    -+1 culture in temples
    -allow "embalmers" : +1 gold per incense
    -(allows GP that die to leave a "remnant artifact" that can be settled as a "Mausoleum improvment" : +10 culture on tile, + (depending) : moral / mana / gold ... : (or as a building)

    spice:
    happy per usual
    allow a (cheap) building (consumes 1 resource) that gives +1f per camp ressource (because it allows to eat less perfect meat by hiding the scent).


    gold :
    happy per usual
    -increased gold with bank or +5% gold (income) per gold (resource) with currency tech or something

    silver : same as gold but richer mines (more resources per mine) and "only" +2%total gold income per silver.
    +1% mana production per silver (it's supposed to be a "holy metal")

    gems
    happy per usual
    -allow jeweller building : (consumes 2 ressource) +2happy with gems:
    (or +1 happy per gems...
    with 10 gems : do you want 1 jeweller city with 8 happies from gems, or 3 jewellers cities, with each 4 happies from the remaining 4 gems ? (total 18)


    ...Etc


    I also liked the idea of equipements proposed by DharmaMcLaren
    (but "free" equipement would be good : assigned at unit creation and then upgradable/downgradable at will later, liberating the resource for others)

    what if the subsequent units were justs "slots" opened for armor / weapons + a different basic str ?
    -->the production is spent to train units that CAN use the armor/weapon. however weapon/armor comes after
    Spoiler :

    --> horseman can take nothing, equite are a bit stronger can take melee weapon / light armor (bronze or leather)
    knight has a better base str; can take weapons, + all armors
    Cataphract is a knight that can take a bow weapon + all armors

    with copper you can only give bronze weapons promotion and bronze armor promotion (each "eats" a copper resource) to those that can take it.

    the advantage is that you can pre-prepare more "heavy infantry in waiting" than available iron... (and if they use the available bronze weapons, they are in fact costlier medium infantries... until one or two iron resource are liberated, either by death of a friend, deowngrading another unit, or by conquest of new resources)

    it would be better to give yew bows to cataphracts (+2x% ranged attack, +x%defense +x/2% attack), but instead you can give them iron weapons : +2x% str,
    and leather/copper armor : +10%str
    or iron armor : +30%str, -1mvt
    ..etc

    (but might be too complicated)
    otherwise, each weapons can give :
    -copper weapon 1str / armor +1str +10% vs ranged -1mvt
    -iron weapon +2str, iron armor +2str +20% vs ranged -1mvt +1terrain cost
    (an iron weapons -iron armor heavy infantry being at +5str vs base and at +3str -1mvt than a copper weapon/armor heavy infantry)
    (but thus you have 2 slots for spending iron on units)
    and you could have



    OTHER AG vs PANTH idea:
    Spoiler :

    I propose (and you dispose) to re-create the "pollution" mechanism of old :
    -ag farms § pastures § plantation gets chances of "pollution" appearance
    --> -1f

    -ag mines, camps and fishing boats get an "depletion" appearance :
    --> -1p -1f

    depletion/pollution, until it is removed, has a low chance to reduce numbered resources by 1 (eg: a 4 irons turns into a 3 iron, or 4elephant into 3 elephant) or remove the non-numbered resource :

    (chance = 1/10*(-20+t+(n-1)(3-w)), with n being the number of ressources on plot, w the wilderness value and t the turn since pollution appeared:
    for a wilderness 0 non-numbered ressource : you get 20 turns free... then 10% first turn, 20% next turn... etc max 10 turns.
    for a 2copper tile on a wild 2 tile you get 19 free- turns
    for a 2copper tile on a wild 1 tile you get 18 free turns
    for a 3copper tile on a wild 1 tile you get 16 free turns !!
    for a 4copper tile on a wild 0 tile (completly tamed) you get 20-9 = 11 free turns !! to react until you lose the resource.


    some great people (sage-engineer/priests-druids-mages-sorcerer) can remove pollution/exhaustion in some cases (not bringing back the lost resources) either using production or magic.

    ideally it (pollution/depletion) won't happen often, but as a mean roughly twice-thrice per city per game so you see the effect, more in older cities, less in newly built cities. (like at least twice per city in non-ressources tiles, 3times in older cities non resource tiles, and and least 1/city on resources, 2-3/city on resources in old cities)

    you might instead tie it to the "wilderness" counter: the smaller the counter, the greater the risks.

    in exchange ag civs sould get more benefit from the ressources/plots :
    more yield ?
    "deep mine" building in city : more depletion risks nearby city, but create 1 ressource from any mine per 2 mineral resource (2 copper mined gives a total of 3 copper for the civ).
    breeding stables : more pollution risks nearby city, but create 1 cattle ressource from any per 2 cattle strategic resource (2horse/elephant resources give 3 for the city)

    for non numbered resources : building are enabled that give further yield (F, G, S...Etc if the ressource is in BFC or accessible) but increases the risks of depletion/pollution

     
  3. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    Lots of good ideas here. When you make suggestions for building effects, it helps if you throw out some possible names for the building. I'm kind of stumped on silk and spice for lack of an inspiring building name. (Though these effects don't have to act through a building.)

    I like the idea of cotton (& flax if added) affecting sailing ships in some way. Perhaps +1 movement to all sailing ships?

    Furs can give +20% strength and healing to living units on tundra or ice?

    On strategic resources, I have a certain vision for how this should work, but the current resource distribution isn't correct so it doesn't work properly. My idea is that certain strategic resources should allow elite or specialized units that are not your main army unit. The bulk of your army should be made up of units that either don't have a resource requirement or have one that is very common. The "bulk units" right now are supposed to be light infantry, horsemen, archers, & catapults. So Horses and Copper need to have a common and abundant distribution. The elite units would be the armored horsemen types (which require iron in addition to the horse), elephants of any sort, bowmen/marksmen, medium/heavy infantry, fire catapults and trebuchets, cannons and so forth. So the "elite" strategic resources are Iron, Elephants, Yew, Naphtha and Blasting Powder, and then Mithril is sort of a "super elite" strategic resource.

    Navy is a little different with Timber limiting the overall size of your fleet. But the bulk of your force might be triremes (Copper) and then elites: dromons (Naphtha) and the cannon ships (requiring Iron and Blasting Powder).

    So I think it will work as intended if I just get the resource distribution correct. Copper and Horses very common (more plots and often at 4 or 6 instances per plot). Iron, Yew, Naphtha and Blasting Powder should also be widely distributed on the map (so everyone has some) but with only 1 or 2 instances each. I want Elephants to remain patchy so that they are a very geography-determined unit (they are still using the base game Ivory luxury distribution, which I think gives the desired result).


    ----------

    I got to play a little test game with the new sea/camp resource changes. The camp system is really fun. It gives some of the same flavor as the previous (now changed) Pantheistic system because camps are established without workers and cannot be pillaged. They can be established out to 7 plots (with Animal Mastery) and then return food and gold through Smokehouses and Hunting Lodges (plus you get the Furs luxury). But then any AI can "steal" it from you by settling within 3 plots of the resource. This plays out really well in a large arctic area. The land is too crappy to want to settle many cities, but one or two remote cities can at least harvest all of the camp resources. But then you have a strong motivation to keep other civs out of the whole region.

    The sea resource change is also cool. One thing that is clearly missing now is resources out in the open ocean, since they can now be used. I'll have to write some code to drop fishes and whales out there, but not too many. (Maybe there will have to be some way to capture these plots without city conquest, but I'll save that for later.)
     
  4. MrL567

    MrL567 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    Been playing around with this mod. Other then the random crashs around turn 110, and the issue with some units with the text key, for an alpha it is really playable and fun.
     
  5. Calavente

    Calavente Richard's voice

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    France
    In fact I was brainstorming on the "citrus-eating sea divers vs furred barbs".
    I think that there should be an differenciation between having 1 example of one resource and having multiples examplares of a resource, even a "luxury".
    a flat +20% or +1mvt would be too strong for just owning 1 flax plantation spot or fur camp. (save for really small empire/army).
    however getting +20% in tundra because you have 5 fur camps and a 50 units army might be funnier for the game : you know that these barbs will be hard to get because they really don't fear cold weather....

    and a civ having one 1 gold resource for 10 cities will not behave in the same way than a civ that has 1 gold resource per city...etc
     
  6. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    Keep in mind that the AI values the "last instance" of a luxury very much, but extra copies not so much. I'm not going to change this (AI changes are just too much work) so whatever mechanism used has to work well with the existing AI preference/behavior. One possible way to make this work is for things to "consume" the resource. The base game already has a mechanism to consume resources via buildings, and the mod can easily add "hidden" buildings. So it is possible to have multiple Citrus instances consumed based on number of ships, for example. The level of shortfall (seen in the UI as negative instances of the resource) is used to calculate a damage risk to ships at sea. Citrus should really be a strategic resource in this system (though I don't want to add it to the already long list of strategic resources needed to build ships).

    On the other hand, while it's fun to think about, is it worth the effort to build a whole "resource consumption" system? So our ships now need Timber, Citrus and Cotton (plus Iron and Blasting Powder for cannons). It kind of gets out of hand after a while. Might be better to scale back to having only minor boosts for each luxury type. Not enough to really need, but something for a little flavor.
     
  7. MrL567

    MrL567 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    One mild thing but I find it maddening is that there are to many barbs in the area, making it a nightmare to control stuff.
     
  8. Calavente

    Calavente Richard's voice

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    France
    well they wouldn't "need" citrus or cotton... if possible those resources would only improve their efficiency.
    IMO the weight impact of those luxury resource should exist but somehow slight.
    the "strategic resources" timber, iron, horse, elephant... would have a bigger impact on shaping the military.
    but "luxury resource" would slightly change the feeling of the civ, giving them an easier time in some area, especially early on.

    maybe you could make it "one time" effects:
    with 5 furs ressources (consumption) you can build a building "fur provider" that gives an instant 1str in tundra : would give an edge in tundra early game but negligible late game when units have 15-20 str.

    same with flax or citrus ... thus you push to gather at least 5 of each resource.

    however it would have meaning only if their could be a way to "remove" the building/ or disable it's ability if you get less than 5 resources... especially if the promotion is only given to new units (or on upgrade) and it stays with the units that got it already.

    well. hope people get some ideas to make resources give slight changes to the civ.

    maybe only the 3 most numerous luxury resource of a civ have an impact?
    (need a check each turn start...)
     
  9. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    Honestly, the only thing the mod does that would affect barbs is to cut the default number of city states in half. That's all. It's amazing how this increases barb challenge though. It seems to be quite a bit more effective than selecting "raging barbs" as an option.

    I'm not suggesting that the mod is balanced yet (it isn't). But I'm definitely of the opinion that players should have to build military, even if they are going for a peaceful play style. I know this is not necessary in base Civ5. Other than some risk on the diplo side, I've found that I can usually play the first half of a Civ5 game building only one or two military units (Emperor difficulty). In FFH, it was very common for my initial build queue to be warrior, warrior, monument, warrior, warrior, warrior, warrior, ... -- and that was in a "peaceful" game. (My ideal would be something closer to FFH than Civ5, but maybe not as extreme as my last sentence implied.)
     
  10. MrL567

    MrL567 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    I see... I am mostly a builder so a really do not build warriors that much, but the few I have gained a decent bit of promotions. Glad barbs only have warriors and no archers or other units for now.
     
  11. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    The Fay (a "hidden" civ) will be in v6. You can initiate diplo interactions with the Queen of the Fay once you open Faerie Lore (without the policy you never "meet" this civ). She will have various resources to trade (gems, gold, silver, yew, iron and probably others...) and will buy or trade for resources that she doesn't have (like any other civ). There will be various ways to increase relations with the Fay, which could make the Queen receptive to requests, or perhaps have other effects (maybe contribute units eventually, when we have appropriate units in the game).
     
  12. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    The Fay are pretty much working now as a hidden civ. (Queen Fand of Tír inna n-Óc)


    Next up are the 28 (so far) pantheistic Gods. These are (technically speaking) hidden minor civs that only pantheistic civs can meet, but they appear in their own area in the diplo list. You won't meet them all at once. I'm not sure exactly how this will work, but maybe you will meet 1 for each pantheistic policy you open and another each time you found a cult in a city. They give quests as base Civ5 city states. (Same quests for now... but eventually I want to make them different.) I have them in the current build but have quite a bit of troubleshooting ahead.

    These are real gods mostly from Celtic tribes, but also Norse, Phrygian, Thracian and others. Many are "place gods" (e.g., associated with a particular river) so fit nicely with the mod's pantheistic worldview. Some were incorporated into "classic" Greek or Roman mythology. Other names seem familiar because they have deep roots in European languages:

    Fagus
    Abellio
    Buxenus
    Robor
    Abnoab
    Epona
    Atepomarus
    Sabazios
    Aveta
    Condatis
    Abandinus
    Adsullata
    Icaunus
    Belisama
    Clota
    Sabrina
    Sequana
    Verbeia
    Borvo
    Ægir
    Barinthus
    Lí Ban
    Fimafeng
    Eldir
    Ritona
    Bakkhos
    Pan
    Silenus

    (Esus, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Sirona and Sucellus would easily fit in this list too... :))
     
  13. 400cats

    400cats Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    20
    The Fay and the minor gods sound awesome (it was one of the things that caught my attention when I first played the mod), but I'm curious: if you don't have Pantheism and your units stumble into Fay territory, what happens?

    Also, sometimes during games I notice barbarian settlements spawning very close to city-states (occasionally right on the border). Maybe the shortening of distances between cities affected barbarian camps as well?

    That's really surprising, because in my experience thus far the barbarians have acted a lot differently from the main game. The warriors sometimes attack wounded units that still have a much stronger combat strength than them due to promotions. They also occasionally pursue a strategy of constantly shifting away from my units while making an effort to stay within/near my borders. I might just be imagining patterns and strategies that aren't there, but the barbarians in this build have seemed smarter to me, not just more numerous.
     
  14. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    You won't... (same with the many pantheistic gods)


    We all know that the AI is not good at tactics, but it at least seems better when they are winning (through numbers or by whatever means). Conversely, it seems more stupid when you are rolling over them.

    Actually, I think the AI is much more effective with barb units than civ units because it doesn't stop to heal. This is one of the factors that allows human players to mop up an attacking AI when it outnumbers you by 5:1 (and it can easily get those numbers at Emperor+ difficulty). I might try removing all "base healing" from the game and replacing it with hp restoration via Lua. No actual gameplay change. But it would fool the AI into thinking it couldn't heal by just sitting there.
     
  15. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    Hidden civs are in and working, both the Fay and the pantheistic gods. There will be a lot to do in the future with trade items (the Fay) and quests (the gods), but the basic mechanics and UI are there now. We also have mod-specific city states (no more Quebec City). Pantheism has been re-engineered completely: they have to build improvements on resources (like anyone else) but can't build on non-resource plots, so can't develop extensive farmlands to grow very big cities. Sea resources and camp resources involve a whole new system (described above) where you can improve and claim plots >3 distance from your cities. This is working and very fun in test runs. Ag civs get a little relief: no more "overgrown farms". Basically, forest, jungle and marsh cause -1f to a plot unless the city follows The Weave of Éa or one of its cults. And you can "tame" these features without removal by building improvements on them (i.e., sawmill). That should be enough motivation to mostly clear them but not run in fear (at least until I add some Druid spells that make my initial system look wimpy by comparison). Also, I have completely changed resource/improvement yields across the board, with generally smaller numbers.

    I still have some work to do though. That damn infinite loop bug is still there (only because I've been doing other stuff instead). But there are lots of loose ends with building and yield changes, and getting documentation and help text to match actual rules. Hopefully I can release v6 before next weekend.
     
  16. Roughly 6 Owls

    Roughly 6 Owls Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    25
    Been lurking recently, but I just wanted to say that you've got an impressive mod here. I'll gladly take some time to playtest.
     
  17. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    More testers is always welcome. The feedback here has been really helpful. You might want to hold off for v6 though. It has some neat new stuff, but it also is the first version that has been substantially influenced (improved I hope) by actual play testing.
     
  18. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    I'll probably get v6 out late next week. I've had all the new tricky mechanisms in since last weekend, but I've been going over all the mundane stuff to clean things up: balancing resources, moving items around to fill in neglected techs, help text, etc. In the process I'm going over the manual line-by-line to make sure it really matches game effects (and help text). Won't be perfect but my goal is to get it from maybe 90% accurate to 98% accurate.

    On the mechanism side, here is what will be missing still in v6:
    • City State traits. I added all CSs but the new traits aren't hooked up to anything yet (I guess I haven't even described them yet). I really feel that the base CSs have become too important: either because the super yield bonuses are too strong or because they are too easy to friend and ally. It may be interesting to see how players do without relying on CSs so much (they are still there to provide resources to allies, and sometimes allying matters at least a little in military campaigns).
    • Mercenary system. Maybe I'll try to add some quick temp mechanic for this.
    • Disease & Plague. Before I add this, I want to make sure that a strong Ag focus really does allow cities to grow huge (sadly, I'm afraid no one will test this with all the new toys for Pantheistic civs). Once we've established that a good Ag play really is overpowered due to huge cities, then I'll add this in as a size limiter.
    • Victories. Probably we'll be in "phase 3" before I get these up and working (though the skeleton for the screen is there now).


    Edit: Well... I was trying to add some temporary bonus for health buildings, and figured it would be easier to just code the system I want anyway (the buildings were already there doing nothing). So here it is:

    Apothecary (Thaumaturgy) +2s per improved reagents; +2 health
    Aqueduct (Construction) +4 health
    Public Baths (Construction; requires Aqueduct) +1 happiness; +2 health
    Sewers (Engineering; requires Aqueduct) +6 health
    Hospital (Medicine) +6 health

    Health represents additional population points above 5 or 10 that a city can support without disease or plague (respectively). Each point above the modified health limit results in a 1% chance per turn of disease or plague. For example, a city of size 12 with no health modifiers has a 7% chance per turn of disease and a 2% chance per turn of plague. The same city with an Aqueduct would have a 3% chance of disease and no chance of plague. When disease or plague strikes, a city will lose one population point per turn for a random 1 to [0.66 * current size] turns, but will never be reduced below size 1. [Plagues will also have a small chance of spreading to nearby cities, but I haven't added that yet.]
     
  19. Killzerslaul

    Killzerslaul Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    Scotland
    I haven't played or posted for a while but all this recent progress is very impressive & interesting. I'm looking forward to the next update.

    One thing that I'd like to ask is: have you got any plans to adjust the end-game units to fit in better with your vision of the resource-distribution-based hierarchy of units?

    In the last version I played (a while ago, things may have changed) Immortals and Clibanarii are about 50% stronger than the weaker Iron versions, but as Mithril will be so much rarer than iron, I'm guessing we'll be seeing several times as many Iron-based units as Mithril on the battlefield. Considering Mithril is also further down the tech tree (particularly in the case of cavalry) I'd argue there needs to be some other kind of bonus too - not a combat strength bonus, because we still want Mithril units to be beatable by superior numbers. But something like 1 more move and a 100% XP bonus doesn't seem too out of place considering how hard they are to get.
    Really though I think it needs some testing. The combat strength difference would be quite a significant one if it was a case of linear progression, it's hard to judge how much difference the rare resource makes without playing a game with it.

    Elephants have a similar problem; although they are strong enough, they are still prohibitively expensive due to a resource/tech combo. With the planned resource setup, they are really only viable as an interesting unit to supplement your main army - but they require the same tech investment as the iron/mithril tree that gives mainstay units as well as supplements. (not to mention all the cool economic buildings on the way to mithril...)
    I'd suggest you'd solve this by adding multiple resources per Ivory tile and possibly splicing the Elephant and Archery tech lines to give elephant players a "mainstay" unit to work with.

    I'm not sure how much you've tested/thought about this, my concerns may be completely unnecessary, in which case discount them. Most of my comments are based on rather distant memories, so I may have forgotten/misremembered/not noticed that you changed something. Thankyou for reading this, and making your great mod. :)
     
  20. onedreamer

    onedreamer Dragon

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,580
    Location:
    Torino - Italia
    Hello, I started testing this mod and I must say kudos for the originality and concepts (will tell you about balance later).
    I have only one request: what should I change, if possible, to disable the save system you have implemented and restore the interface so I can save where I want (e.g. steam cloud)?
     

Share This Page