Anno Domini beta : test it and feed back here!!

[Rob (R8XFT)]

My game as Sparta first went quite good....until I realised the random placement really screwed me! I'm going to start another game as the Spartans with hopefully better results (and I'm not being picky...I was surrounded by desert and marshes on all sides).

Something I noticed so far:

When looking at the civilopedia entries of the civs, I've noticed that the basic information is given first and then the statistical advantages, etc. I'd prefer it to be the other way around, because it is a bit annoying that it always flips back to the "informational part" after checking out a civ-specific advantage and pressing the back button. If that didn't make much sense, I'll try to explain what I mean step by step:

- I click to activate a civ's civilopedia entry, in this case Sparta
- First thing I see is the historical information
- Upon pressing the more button on the right, I am linked to the civ-specific strengths and advantages, i.e. UU, prefered governments, civ stats, etc.
- When pressing on one of the links to see what the exact advantages of a certain strength, unit, improvement, government, etc. are, I press the back button to return to the civ's civilopedia entry
- I am returned to the historical information rather than the civ-specific strength page, meaning I have to repeatedly press the "more" button to arrive at the desired page

I hope that made sense?

Other than that, the environment and civs are stunning Rob! You've done a great job in emercing the player in each civs according culture. Excellent mod so far!

That's an interesting idea. What do other people think?

Thanks for the comments so far. In terms of the peltast, the Macedonian peltast and Spartan peltast have exactly the same entry as the Athenean peltast - but it's the only time I copied the same entry. Do you think I should copy other entries, such as when there's the "tool age spearman," would it be okay for the "European tool age spearman" to have the same entry? I suppose, for example, it might be pertinent to have a different entry for the "Indian tool age spearman," where there's no real difference between units or a generic entry, is there any need to have different entries?

What do people think of the "smelter" idea - building barracks in era one that will become redundant in late era two? It's like you have to make a decision to upgrade your defences from A1D3M1 to A2D4M1 at the right time. Also, with the extra advance in-between, it keeps the A1D3M1 unit in play a bit longer.

 

[Blue Monkey]

I agree that the gameplay info should be the default page on each entry.

I suppose, for example, it might be pertinent to have a different entry for the "Indian tool age spearman," where there's no real difference between units or a generic entry, is there any need to have different entries?

There are some places where it would be nice to have some civ-specific historical background, such as that archery holds the same cultural importance for India (and mention the place of archery in the Mahabharata and Ramayana) that swordwork does for Medieval Europe or traditional Japan. Some of us like to play for "flavor" rather than just maximizing chance of winning.

 

[ElCommandante]

A few observations from playing as Carthage.
1. The GW "Hanno's Voyage" is not available to Carthage but is supposedly Carthaginian historically. Perhaps it could be renamed into something generic?
2. The Carthaginian dock requires Tar in the radius, as does the Whaler. Is this intentional, so as to prevent the overuse of these buildings? If that is the case, could the Cotton Trader require the Cothon instead?
3. The Double harbor duplicates the ship veterancy effect of the Cothon, which it requires. Is this so that anyone who captures it will get the effect?
Other than that, great job on the mod, it's even better than the first version.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

A few observations from playing as Carthage.
1. The GW "Hanno's Voyage" is not available to Carthage but is supposedly Carthaginian historically. Perhaps it could be renamed into something generic?
2. The Carthaginian dock requires Tar in the radius, as does the Whaler. Is this intentional, so as to prevent the overuse of these buildings? If that is the case, could the Cotton Trader require the Cothon instead?
3. The Double harbor duplicates the ship veterancy effect of the Cothon, which it requires. Is this so that anyone who captures it will get the effect?
Other than that, great job on the mod, it's even better than the first version.

Some very, very good observations. I used tar as a generic resource that would limit the building of certain improvements. I'd honestly not thought about the Double Harbour. Perhaps this should generate a bireme every five turns until ocean faring - mind you that's not exactly a thrilling bonus, or is it? Maybe it could double up as a free whaler (i.e. increasing shields in water) just to beef it up a bit?

I'll have to give Hanno's voyage another think...

 

[Blue Monkey]

The patch 1.04 you have posted does not fix the Chakra thrower problem.

The name of the other Chakra guy needs Sikh capitalized. It's like not capitalizing British.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

The patch 1.04 you have posted does not fix the Chakra thrower problem.

The name of the other Chakra guy needs Sikh capitalized. It's like not capitalizing British.

That's odd, as I played a game with them. I'll have to check that when I get home (which won't be for another 8 hours). In the meantime, just disabling the sounds in the .ini file should do it.

 

[Blue Monkey]

what's posted has a date prior to your latest revisions. Maybe the wrong file got posted?

 

[CC-2224]

That's an interesting idea. What do other people think?

Thanks for the comments so far. In terms of the peltast, the Macedonian peltast and Spartan peltast have exactly the same entry as the Athenean peltast - but it's the only time I copied the same entry. Do you think I should copy other entries, such as when there's the "tool age spearman," would it be okay for the "European tool age spearman" to have the same entry? I suppose, for example, it might be pertinent to have a different entry for the "Indian tool age spearman," where there's no real difference between units or a generic entry, is there any need to have different entries?

What do people think of the "smelter" idea - building barracks in era one that will become redundant in late era two? It's like you have to make a decision to upgrade your defences from A1D3M1 to A2D4M1 at the right time. Also, with the extra advance in-between, it keeps the A1D3M1 unit in play a bit longer.

Two things:

1. With regards to the Civ entries in the civilopedia, I would also prefer having the info about each civ on the first page. Having the historical info on the front, however, may be a better option if you want people to read it. It might be interesting to do some testing and see how this works out.
2. In my opinion, having different entries for the "European Tool Age Spearman" and the normal "Tool Age Spearman" and all other such units is much better than a single generic entry for each unit. As Blue Monkey said, having separate entries allows you to include the unique history of each unit and how it was important to that civilization or culture group.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

what's posted has a date prior to your latest revisions. Maybe the wrong file got posted?

I've posted the correct file, but is it possible that because I've not changed the name from the last version that your computer has "stored" the information from the last download and is churning out the old file automatically? The new file, which will have a date of 23.10.07, should be 1.45MB in size - the old one was only about 370K or something like that. Could you please check? I'm sure this has happened to me before.

 

[Virote_Considon]

That's an interesting idea. What do other people think?

Thanks for the comments so far. In terms of the peltast, the Macedonian peltast and Spartan peltast have exactly the same entry as the Athenean peltast - but it's the only time I copied the same entry.

I would say that you should pretty much use the same pedia entry, but maybe tailor it for each civ? For example, Sparta didn't rely as heavily on Peltasts as Athens, whilst Macedonia relied on them more so.

Also, how about renaming the Macedonian Peltast the Agrianian Peltast? The Agrianes were a particularly ferocious Thracian tribe, who the Macedonians hired large numbers of mercenaries from!

What do people think of the "smelter" idea - building barracks in era one that will become redundant in late era two? It's like you have to make a decision to upgrade your defences from A1D3M1 to A2D4M1 at the right time. Also, with the extra advance in-between, it keeps the A1D3M1 unit in play a bit longer.

This sounds good, too.

 

[ElCommandante]

Some very, very good observations. I used tar as a generic resource that would limit the building of certain improvements. I'd honestly not thought about the Double Harbour. Perhaps this should generate a bireme every five turns until ocean faring - mind you that's not exactly a thrilling bonus, or is it? Maybe it could double up as a free whaler (i.e. increasing shields in water) just to beef it up a bit?

I'll have to give Hanno's voyage another think...

Sounds good. Also, how about any unique improvement in-game with a resource requirement be with it available, not within radius? That way, the you should see the unique improvements a good bit more, and they would be a greater advantage than otherwise.

 

[Gen. Rommel]

1. With regards to the Civ entries in the civilopedia, I would also prefer having the info about each civ on the first page. Having the historical info on the front, however, may be a better option if you want people to read it. It might be interesting to do some testing and see how this works out.

1. 
   
   Well, I think it's kind of useless to try and "force" people to read the historical information by placing it on the first page rather than the second. If you don't want to read it or are just plain lazy, you're simply not going to read it, regardless what page it's on. If you are interested in actually learning something about the civ you're currently playing as, you'll read the historical informatio, simple as that. As I said, the current setup is just kind of annoying when one wants to flip back and forth in the civpedia pages.
   
   Having civ-specific entries for each unit would definitely be cool, though I also understand how hard it can be to find differing entries. I'd say that trying to make them as specific as possible is best, but in certain cases where this poses a problem, a more generic entry could be used.

 

[xmart2k]

good work Rob, the mod is grate, but it still misses something, a king for the regicide, i look forward to a 1.5 patch

 

[Blue Monkey]

I've posted the correct file, but is it possible that because I've not changed the name from the last version that your computer has "stored" the information from the last download and is churning out the old file automatically? The new file, which will have a date of 23.10.07, should be 1.45MB in size - the old one was only about 370K or something like that. Could you please check? I'm sure this has happened to me before.

I think I accidentally reinstalled the old one (name confusion) even though I dl'd the new one & transferred it to my PC. I've now installed the new patch & will let you know if all is well as soon as I've played a game long enough to get to the chakra thrower.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

In my opinion, having different entries for the "European Tool Age Spearman" and the normal "Tool Age Spearman" and all other such units is much better than a single generic entry for each unit. As Blue Monkey said, having separate entries allows you to include the unique history of each unit and how it was important to that civilization or culture group.
[/LIST]

I would say that you should pretty much use the same pedia entry, but maybe tailor it for each civ? For example, Sparta didn't rely as heavily on Peltasts as Athens, whilst Macedonia relied on them more so.

Having civ-specific entries for each unit would definitely be cool, though I also understand how hard it can be to find differing entries. I'd say that trying to make them as specific as possible is best, but in certain cases where this poses a problem, a more generic entry could be used.

Thanks, guys for these comments. I think that Gen. Rommel hits the nail on the head when he says that it is hard to find differing entries. What I need is a military history site that I can steal snippets of info from.

Also, how about renaming the Macedonian Peltast the Agrianian Peltast? The Agrianes were a particularly ferocious Thracian tribe, who the Macedonians hired large numbers of mercenaries from!
This sounds good, too.

I don't see why not ! I'll try to remember to update that for the next patch.

good work Rob, the mod is grate, but it still misses something, a king for the regicide, i look forward to a 1.5 patch

I thought about regicide and didn't realise there was a desire for king units to play it. Ok, I'll look to add some next time. If I've got any missing (e.g. Iceni), I don't think they use any difficult animations, so I'm sure I can sort them out quite easily.

Sounds good. Also, how about any unique improvement in-game with a resource requirement be with it available, not within radius? That way, the you should see the unique improvements a good bit more, and they would be a greater advantage than otherwise.

I did consider this and have applied it where I felt it necessary. An example of this is the kadagam, the Chola unique building, which only requires access to stone. Part of the reason this was the case is that it's a coastal installation, so there was already a limiting factor without there having to be the resource within the city limits.

I think I accidentally reinstalled the old one (name confusion) even though I dl'd the new one & transferred it to my PC. I've now installed the new patch & will let you know if all is well as soon as I've played a game long enough to get to the chakra thrower.

Ok, enjoy your game and report back !

 

[Stormrage]

Well I just had to go and get myself a hernia (sp?) so I could give your mod the time it deserves

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

A new patch has been placed in post one to update the mod based on the feedback given so far. The information on the updates is in post two . Sorry to hear about the hernia, Stormrage.

 

[Stormrage]

Yeah, well, work hasn`t been all fun an games lately
Yay! New patch!

 

[Blue Monkey]

The nation of "Chola"? That's hilarious! Ah, around here a "Chola" is like a female Cholo (basically a Mexican gangsta)

Sounds like you live where I do, in Kali? It can also be written in English as Cola. That one's even funnier: "Who'll conquer India, Coke or Pepsi?"

Thanks, guys for these comments. I think that Gen. Rommel hits the nail on the head when he says that it is hard to find differing entries. What I need is a military history site that I can steal snippets of info from.

I can write Indian ones for you of course -maybe others with a passion for a particular civ or group of civs could do the same.

A new patch has been placed in post one to update the mod based on the feedback given so far. The information on the updates is in post two .

Every patch makes it a more engaging experience. I just hate having to start a new game each time.

 

[odintheking]

Well I just had to go and get myself a hernia (sp?) so I could give your mod the time it deserves

Holy crap! How'd you get a hernia?

Sounds like you live where I do, in Kali? It can also be written in English as Cola. That one's even funnier: "Who'll conquer India, Coke or Pepsi?"

Nah I live in El Paso. Around here everyone has Mexican blood.