Discussion in 'Civ4 - Dune Wars' started by davidlallen, Jul 4, 2009.
Will do - I just need to make the grids version and fix the grids on rock, mesa, etc.
Yeah, alerting is not bad... although each player should have his own "spies" on looking, who's winning. I'd alert at 1%, 2%, 2.5% and of course 3% *lol*
You could also think of new mali vs. "arrakis-spice"-factions, depending on this percentage: 1% = -2; 2% = -4, 2.5% = -6 or something... on the other hand, the reservoirs of liet might work this also out... although I am not sure, if this victory can also be achieved without liets reservoirs...?! Maybe it depends on how many factions try to get a terraforming victory... mostly not sooo much
...but as already said above, maybe the "new terrain" should not come from all: wells, catch basins and liets reservoir... or only "anchor-grassland" appears from all the named. But to be further terraformed into grassland, liets reservoir is required.
If that's too hard, you can count "anchor-grassland" as "half" or "quarter"-terraformed tiles. What means: two (or four) anchor-tiles count as one grassland-tile...
But first of all, as David said, new playtesting is required
Just waiting for 1.6.4
I don't know if it has been mentioned (read only first page) but the Fremen never intended to drive the worms and spice into extinction. They'd only terraform part of Arrakis and leave the rest to the worms and spice (whose exact relationship I have forgotten), perhaps 50-50 or so. Makes sense considering that they are pretty much spice junkies and the withdrawal is lethal.
I don't really think they thought much about it, the extinction of worms that is. The whole terraforming agenda was to take 50-60 generations. The Fremen depended on water to survive. What they wanted was a world where they didn't have to seal up their caves to keep moisture from escaping and could walk freely outdoors without a stillsuit. Spice was a part of their diet, but it wasn't as valuable to them as to everyone else. They mostly used it as bribes to the spacing guild to hide their terraforming projects.
I'll have to read the novels again just to make sure. But iirc Liet-Kynes (or whatever the name was) specifically planned on not driving the worms into extinction. Of course, whoever takes charge after his death might have different ideas. But then again, Fremen have learned to coexist with the worms and afaik Shai-Hulud is some kind of a worm god of theirs.
The Fremen never intended to destroy the worms completely; that was Leto II's fault. And they also didn't really know that terraforming would destroy all the spice either - but also didn't much care.
In the mod as in the books, the fact that terraforming drives back the worms and therefore the spice is a side-effect of the terraforming, not the aim.
In 1.6.4 david has changed the terraforming victory target to 3% of all tiles terraformed, so you only have to terraform a percentage of the planet to win this way.
Since people have found the 3% currently too hard to reach, can I suggest again the possibility of having 3-range fresh water on the Reservoir?
The 2-range is done as a hack, and it is not easily extensible to 3-range. There is an invisible feature which gives fresh water in all adjacent plots. To get 2-range, I place four of these invisible features one plot N,S,E,W of the city. If you draw it out, you will see this exactly covers the BFC. When the reservoir is destroyed, these four features are also destroyed. There is a bug here, if there is another fresh water source on one of these four plots, it would be destroyed. It is unlikely anybody playing the game will realize, but it is not an ideal solution.
I did not draw out 3-range, but it would require managing like 8-10 of these invisible features, and this bug would be much more likely to happen. So it would require implementing some much cleaner solution. It is listed in the issues sheet, but it is not among my top priorities.
On the other hand, I do plan to take Slvynn's suggestion of changing the "3% of total area" to "10% of terraform-able area". For mapscripts with low land percentage or high mesa percentage, this will make the victory more achievable. I am going to lock down 1.7 probably tomorrow, and this change may or may not make it.
Ok, I didn't realize this. Thanks for explaining.
Does this mean something like groundwater, which only provides fresh water with an improvement? Or only fresh water from a lake/oasis - which should be destroyed if the reservoir gets destroyed anyway?
What other fresh water sources are there?
If it doesn't destroy groundwater water supply, then I don't see what the problem is.
Please see attached Excel sheet to make sure I'm understanding this right, and for a couple of ways to get 3-range. You could get *most* of 3-range by still placing only 4 fresh water resources, so equal chance of bugs to now: place one 2N, 2E, 2S and 2W of the city. And you could get all of it by placing 8.
Ok, this seems worth trying. Just keep the old code in case we revert
The well is currently the only one. If you have a well N of a city with a reservoir, and the reservoir is destroyed, then the fresh water N of the city disappears. It should not. Nobody has reported this bug yet, but I do not want to extend this hack implementation to 3-range. The chances of the bug being noticed are much larger.
How does the fresh water with groundwater work? You have an invisible resource that provides fresh water *with well improvement*?
Or you have an invisible resource that is created when you build a well improvement?
I ask because groundwater *isn't* like an oasis; it doesn't provide fresh water until the improvement is built on it.
In either case, the groundwater-freshwater (which requires an improvement) seems like a different resource to the freshwater from a reservoir, which doesn't. Is it possible when the reservoir is destroyed that to make it destroy only the latter, and nor the former?
Again though, this is not a high priority issue for me; if you don't think its technically feasible, or only is with considerable work, I'm happy to leave it as a "maybe in future" issue low on the to-do list.
When a well improvement is built, the invisible feature is added. When a well improvement is destroyed or another non-well improvement is built, the invisible feature is removed. When a reservoir is built, four invisible features are added. When a city is destroyed or the civ stops following the paradise civic, the reservoir is destroyed and the four invisible features are removed. The problem is that there may have been effectively *two* invisible features there, one from the reservoir and one from the well, but the game can only store one, so it is removed.
So, the easy fix in some sense would just to be have the well improvement be destroyed at the same time as the fresh water feature is destroyed (when the reservoir is destryed). That way, it gets rebuilt, and a new fresh water feature is created.
Sorry, what? If I stop following the paradise civic, then all the wells which happen to be 1 plot N,S,E,W of the cities with reservoirs are destroyed?
Think of it as the water from the reservoir pouring out and destroying infrastructure
I didn't say it was a great solution; just the easiest.
The next easiest would surely be to add a check for a well improvement on the tile before removing the water resource. This is all done in python I assume.
That is possible, but managing 4 or 8 separate invisible features is still a hack.
Yes, but so what?
I thought your suggestion was that this was inevitable.
What I would like to do is implement something in the sdk which actually has a radius. Then there will be only one object to manage.
Ok, understood. So, your preference is leave it for now, and add reconfiguring to a radius (that could allow for radius 3) as a low priority to-do list item.
This seems reasonable, if you think at adding an "if not well, then remove fresh water feature" step would be time-consuming or buggy.
Separate names with a comma.