AssignStartingPlots defaults for VP

[azum4roll]

Very detailed indeed. I didn't suggest changing anything about resources around capitals since they looked fine.

Replacing the starting iron with a starting stone is risky, since it gives an edge to wonder building and it allows the stone building that trades production. If you know there's always some stone around, that can change the starting decisions very strongly. But you wouldn't rush iron only for a small iron deposit, would you?

Feels like we need a new production bonus resource that doesn't give anything else.

Still, stone is only given to starts with low production so the 10% shouldn't matter that much. And it's already given to heavy grassland starts, regardless of those grasslands being hills/forest or not.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Feels like we need a new production bonus resource that doesn't give anything else.

Still, stone is only given to starts with low production so the 10% shouldn't matter that much. And it's already given to heavy grassland starts, regardless of those grasslands being hills/forest or not.

I'd prefer to have horses or iron near a low-production start myself. There's a lot of stone around at the moment already. I'm not super fussed either way. Capital starts feel relatively good as they are though.

 

[azum4roll]

I'd prefer to have horses or iron near a low-production start myself. There's a lot of stone around at the moment already. I'm not super fussed either way. Capital starts feel relatively good as they are though.

It's hard to control the amount of strategic resources on the map when it can be added from uncontrollable sources. What if we add forests (to viable tiles i.e. featureless flat grassland/plains/tundra) instead? Remember it only affects max three tiles per start, even if we change all stone placements.

I'm serious about adding a new production bonus resource, btw. The only existing one is stone, but it gives a +10% wonder production bonus and the access to Stone Works, so according to some of you it shouldn't be common. While strategic resource is very valuable and should not be given to a civ just to balance out yields.

 

[CrazyG]

Still, stone is only given to starts with low production so the 10% shouldn't matter that much. And it's already given to heavy grassland starts, regardless of those grasslands being hills/forest or not.

Is this the intended behavior? Currently stone appears in very large amounts on plains along side horses and forests.

 

[azum4roll]

Is this the intended behavior? Currently stone appears in very large amounts on plains along side horses and forests.

Bonus resources within 3 rings of start locations and on other parts of the map are placed completely differently.

Forests are appearing more than before? Feature generation wasn't touched.

 

[CrazyG]

Forests are appearing more than before? Feature generation wasn't touched.

No, forest is normal. I was just noting that multiple starts I had with low food and high production (plains and forests) also got stone.

Overall I think there are a bit too many resources right now, and taking stone off of plains could be a good start at reducing bloat.

 

[JamesNinelives]

It's hard to control the amount of strategic resources on the map when it can be added from uncontrollable sources. What if we add forests (to viable tiles i.e. featureless flat grassland/plains/tundra) instead? Remember it only affects max three tiles per start, even if we change all stone placements.

Forests might work! I guess the other option is to add a hill. I would prefer forests to hills though.

IMO stone on grassland makes sense. Stone can't appear on forest and didn't use to turn up on hills, so you're less likely to have stone near your capital if you also have forest or hills.

Feels like we need a new production bonus resource that doesn't give anything else.

I mean we could and new stuff is cool but if we can fix it with the tools we already have, that seems easier?

Overall I think there are a bit too many resources right now, and taking stone off of plains could be a good start

I agree .

 

[tu_79]

I like it more with some trees for a tiny bit of production. We can't exploit it now, since it won't give production on cutting in a long time.

Could we summarize the changes?

1. Fewer stones overall. Especially on hills.
2. Increase minimum distance between strategics: 2 to 3 in most cases.
3. Allow some clusters for bonus resources, setting minimum distances from 1 to 3 in most cases, but no adjacencies.
4. Reduce the amount of strategics in horse deposits, ranging 2 to 4 horses per deposit in standard.
5. Slightly less bison.
6. Reduce horses on flooding plains.
7. Add just one forest feature to capitals if there is no forest or jungle around, except in desert, snow or mountains.

 

[azum4roll]

Disagree with no adjacencies for bonus resources. It makes things too predictable when you know there's absolutely nothing adjacent to the wheat/banana you see at start (outside of third ring). There needs to be some adjacency.

 

[Stalker0]

My notes inline

I like it more with some trees for a tiny bit of production. We can't exploit it now, since it won't give production on cutting in a long time.

Could we summarize the changes?

1. Fewer stones overall. Especially on hills.

--Fine

2. Increase minimum distance between strategics: 2 to 3 in most cases.

--Agreed

3. Allow some clusters for bonus resources, setting minimum distances from 1 to 3 in most cases, but no adjacencies.

--Disagree, I personally like some clusters here and there, it leads to fun city spots. So reduction is fine, but not a removal.

4. Reduce the amount of strategics in horse deposits, ranging 2 to 4 horses per deposit in standard.

--Makes sense

5. Slightly less bison.

--Sure

6. Reduce horses on flooding plains.

--Ambivalent

7. Add just one forest feature to capitals if there is no forest or jungle around, except in desert, snow or mountains.

--I'm confused as to what this means

 

[Txurce]

I like it more with some trees for a tiny bit of production. We can't exploit it now, since it won't give production on cutting in a long time.

Could we summarize the changes?

1. Fewer stones overall. Especially on hills.
2. Increase minimum distance between strategics: 2 to 3 in most cases.
3. Allow some clusters for bonus resources, setting minimum distances from 1 to 3 in most cases, but no adjacencies.
4. Reduce the amount of strategics in horse deposits, ranging 2 to 4 horses per deposit in standard.
5. Slightly less bison.
6. Reduce horses on flooding plains.
7. Add just one forest feature to capitals if there is no forest or jungle around, except in desert, snow or mountains.

Nothing I object to here, but the only changes I would have asked for are less horses and moe scattered resource clusters.

 

[Txurce]

Nothing I object to here, but the only changes I would have asked for are less horses and moe scattered resource clusters. The revisions all make some sense to me, regardless.

 

[tu_79]

My notes inline
--I'm confused as to what this means

Well, if you place a forest regardless of the environment it would look pretty weird. Anywhere close to the equator I expect the forest to be a jungle, but you don't have the logic here that we have in our map for deciding whether it's a jungle or a forest, so I would only place a forest where it would make sense. For instance, if there is already a forest or a jungle around the capital, you don't need to place more trees. Then, even if there's no trees around, it would look pretty weird over desert, it would not be needed on hills (since hills already provide production) or mountains (since you can't place forests here anyways). I am not sure we can code this so neatly, though. I am used to the map script and have to investigate first which functions might work in this detached lua.

 

[tu_79]

Here you have all the changes agreed, except for the extra trees around capitals. @azum4roll, do you want to try?
Replace the file in MODS/(6x) Community Balance Overhaul -Compatibility files/LUA.


Edit. I've modified how major deposit works. Now if it is set to be 4 horses, it will produce randomly 2, 3 or 4 horses per deposit.

Edit 2. Forgot to reduce stones on hills. Fixed!

 

[Stalker0]

Here you have all the changes agreed, except for the extra trees around capitals. @azum4roll, do you want to try?
Replace the file in MODS/(6x) Community Balance Overhaul -Compatibility files/LUA.


Edit. I've modified how major deposit works. Now if it is set to be 4 horses, it will produce randomly 2, 3 or 4 horses per deposit.

I think you thought my confusion is on the second part, its actually the first "add just one forest feature to capitals if there is no forest or jungle around".

What "forest feature" are you adding?

 

[Deljade]

I think you thought my confusion is on the second part, its actually the first "add just one forest feature to capitals if there is no forest or jungle around".

What "forest feature" are you adding?

I think he means to just add a Forest (terrain feature) to a tile. Which I do not like by the way. A no forest start is a no forest start. There are biomes on earth like the steppe, with no trees. Plopping a forest to an endless plains biome just feels weird, of course I could cut it but it's important for the start to look sexy! Even the dev that made AssignStartingPlots script recognised that.

 

[tu_79]

Well, so far there's no extra forest features, so try it as it is.

 

[CrazyG]

How would be feel about tundra or desert horses existing, but those only yield 2 copies. Plains/grasslands yield 3 or 4.

Also these changes have added Bison to plains, (it used to be grassland only), and I want to praise that change. First for reasons of logic. Second because it adds food to low food plains starts.

 

[tu_79]

How would be feel about tundra or desert horses existing, but those only yield 2 copies. Plains/grasslands yield 3 or 4.

What I've done is to reduce the frequency in deserts (aka flooding plains) to be more like tundra (but flooding plains are far less common, that's why the figures don't match) and increase minimum distance for both (every time it attempts to create a new deposit it chooses randomly between 1 and 3, and checks the closest strategic deposit not to be closer than that), so even if the deposit can be a large one, it would be a rare occurrence.

It can be set to place half the usual amount, minimum 1 horse, for example:

    resources_to_place = {
        {self.horse_ID, math.max(1, horse_amt / 2), 100, 1, 3}
    };
    self:ProcessResourceList(50 * resMultiplier, 1, self.desert_wheat_list, resources_to_place);
    self:ProcessResourceList(70 * resMultiplier, 1, self.tundra_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);

This way, for normal abundance a major deposit is 4, but can yield anything between 2 and 4. Just for desert and tundra it would yield anything between 1 and 2.

It can be done, but is everyone on this train?

 

[JamesNinelives]

I like it more with some trees for a tiny bit of production. We can't exploit it now, since it won't give production on cutting in a long time.

Could we summarize the changes?

1. Fewer stones overall. Especially on hills.
2. Increase minimum distance between strategics: 2 to 3 in most cases.
3. Allow some clusters for bonus resources, setting minimum distances from 1 to 3 in most cases, but no adjacencies.
4. Reduce the amount of strategics in horse deposits, ranging 2 to 4 horses per deposit in standard.
5. Slightly less bison.
6. Reduce horses on flooding plains.
7. Add just one forest feature to capitals if there is no forest or jungle around, except in desert, snow or mountains.

I'm honestly quite happy with these, at the very least I look forward to testing them .

What I've done is to reduce the frequency in deserts (aka flooding plains) to be more like tundra (but flooding plains are far less common, that's why the figures don't match) and increase minimum distance for both (every time it attempts to create a new deposit it chooses randomly between 1 and 3, and checks the closest strategic deposit not to be closer than that), so even if the deposit can be a large one, it would be a rare occurrence.

It can be set to place half the usual amount, minimum 1 horse, for example:

    resources_to_place = {
        {self.horse_ID, math.max(1, horse_amt / 2), 100, 1, 3}
    };
    self:ProcessResourceList(50 * resMultiplier, 1, self.desert_wheat_list, resources_to_place);
    self:ProcessResourceList(70 * resMultiplier, 1, self.tundra_flat_no_feature, resources_to_place);

This way, for normal abundance a major deposit is 4, but can yield anything between 2 and 4. Just for desert and tundra it would yield anything between 1 and 2.

It can be done, but is everyone on this train?

I haven't tested the existing changes so honestly I just want to test those for now and see how it feels .