AssignStartingPlots defaults for VP

[inzlinger]

To be more constructive, my two pence: I only plaid two times, so my jugdement could be somewhat anecdotical (continents).

Horses and iron: There are too much deposits with too less amounts. Less deposits but with 4 horses or iron would be better. So taking Open Sky is now a nobrainer.
Stone: Seems quite rare now, in my two games I didn't got any in my capital. Harlicarnassos is absolutly useless now, since you always build it in your capital at this stage in the game. (Wasn't that good anyway)
Later Strategics distribution is the same like iron and horses. Lots of deposits with small amounts. Aluminium is the exception here.
If the people like how it is right now, I can live with it. But I would prefer to get the deposits less frequent but bigger.

 

[JamesNinelives]

There are too much deposits with too less amounts.

I do kind of agree? Like you, I just haven't played a lot of games yet though. So don't want to change things too much.

Stone: Seems quite rare now, in my two games I didn't got any in my capital. Harlicarnassos is absolutly useless now, since you always build it in your capital at this stage in the game. (Wasn't that good anyway)

Disagree with this. Halicarnassus is excellent, and while stone isn't as common as it was in the initial version to be it's still around. Also, you want to build the Masoleum when you get something like Jade or Salt around your capital, not just stone.

 

[tu_79]

To be more constructive, my two pence: I only plaid two times, so my jugdement could be somewhat anecdotical (continents).

Horses and iron: There are too much deposits with too less amounts. Less deposits but with 4 horses or iron would be better. So taking Open Sky is now a nobrainer.
Stone: Seems quite rare now, in my two games I didn't got any in my capital. Harlicarnassos is absolutly useless now, since you always build it in your capital at this stage in the game. (Wasn't that good anyway)
Later Strategics distribution is the same like iron and horses. Lots of deposits with small amounts. Aluminium is the exception here.
If the people like how it is right now, I can live with it. But I would prefer to get the deposits less frequent but bigger.

There should be 8 horses per player, deposits range between 2 and 4, with an average at 3. So every player should get 4 horse deposits in average, counting the starting one.

 

[inzlinger]

There should be 8 horses per player, deposits range between 2 and 4, with an average at 3. So every player should get 4 horse deposits in average, counting the starting one.

Maybe I was lucky, but I have got in both games in my first 5 cities at least 6 or mor horse deposits with mostly 2. None with four, maybe one or two with three. To be sure what really happens, we need a lot more testgames.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Maybe I was lucky, but I have got in both games in my first 5 cities at least 6 or mor horse deposits with mostly 2. None with four, maybe one or two with three. To be sure what really happens, we need a lot more testgames.

That's interesting. Just to check, which file version are you using?

 

[inzlinger]

That's interesting. Just to check, which file version are you using?

The last one from tu_79, post #132

Edit: The latest patch as well, forgot the number

 

[JamesNinelives]

The last one from tu_79, post #132

Edit: The latest patch as well, forgot the number

OK, thanks.

I'm using the #124 version that Azum4 posted. I don't expect the versions to be much different, but it's useful to know.

 

[tu_79]

The last one from tu_79, post #132

Edit: The latest patch as well, forgot the number

What map?

 

[Novntis]

If we're getting horses on tundra, can we get bison on flat tundra too? Bison live on tundra (the only non-extirpated herd in the US grazes on Yellowstone tundra), as do Caribou and Musk Oxen which are not being represented. I'd like to see large sub-arctic mammals get representation in the game.

As further justification, there seems to be a consistent complaint in balance threads that flat tundra is awful and I prefer to not require that all tundra be forested to be viable. I think it would help diversify the camp resources and add missing gold in the biome.

 

[tu_79]

I guess a few grassland bison could be moved to the tundra pastures. Maybe reduce deer a little bit to prevent excessive food in the tundra.

 

[Milae]

Is there a fix for the issue with NormalizeStartLocation on new patch?

 

[Milae]

Also one thing is that currently GenerateGlobalResourcePlotLists doesn't put snow hills on any list so you can't put resources on them. Could you add in a hills_snow please? Also perhaps snow hills should just be included in hills_open list as well I'm not sure why they aren't.

 

[azum4roll]

Also one thing is that currently GenerateGlobalResourcePlotLists doesn't put snow hills on any list so you can't put resources on them. Could you add in a hills_snow please? Also perhaps snow hills should just be included in hills_open list as well I'm not sure why they aren't.

hills_snow contains so few plots that it'll only spawn one resource anyway.

hills_open can't include snow hills because sheep.

Maybe it can be included in the snow list instead, but oil isn't on hills either.

Is there a fix for the issue with NormalizeStartLocation on new patch?

When I have time. Meanwhile can you try Communitu_79a instead? Or put your tweaks on it.

 

[Milae]

Okay well I put AttemptToPlaceStoneAtGrassPlot back in and that fixed it

hills_open can't include snow hills because sheep.

Ahh yea good point.

Also I added in a hills_snow list

And included snow hills into the hills_list (not used in your script and only used for some strategics in others)

Tbh there are still a lot more lists snow hills could potentially be added to but I didn't want to change too much.

Linked it all on Github

 

[JamesNinelives]

The resource distribution in the game I'm playing at the moment seems good. 9/2 version, Continents Plus, Huge map, other settings standard. Horses, Iron, and bonus resources are all OK.

I did notice there wasn't much coal around though - 100 coal for a Huge map. I had 13 civs so it was about 7 coal each. That's OK, but a lot of people play with more civs than me. Some deposits also spawn in odd places like tiny islands or the arctic where it's difficult to access.

 

[azum4roll]

The resource distribution in the game I'm playing at the moment seems good. 9/2 version, Continents Plus, Huge map, other settings standard. Horses, Iron, and bonus resources are all OK.

I did notice there wasn't much coal around though - 100 coal for a Huge map. I had 13 civs so it was about 7 coal each. That's OK, but a lot of people play with more civs than me. Some deposits also spawn in odd places like tiny islands or the arctic where it's difficult to access.

Intended; by design you're meant to build refineries or trade with others if you want more factories/seaports/train stations.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Intended; by design you're meant to build refineries or trade with others if you want more factories/seaports/train stations.

It doesn't make sense for the map size though. Compare it to the amount of other resources on the same map: there is 189 Iron, 220 oil, and 283 aluminium! Only 138 horses, but that's OK. You can get by with 2 or 4 horses. Especially if you have iron - and you will always have one or the other.

Trading for coal doesn't really work, because the AI uses all the coal they have access to fairly quickly. There are 12 other civs in my current game and there is 0 coal available for trade from anyone at present.

I know that there is an element of luck here, and I'm happy to take the good with the bad up to a point. I always settle wide to have the best chances I can. There is a limit at which it just feels bad though. I have the third largest empire and only 2 coal total. By contrast I have 21 aluminium!

Edit: Consider also that aluminium gets produced by recyling plants - and you get more of it than you do coal from refineries. Iron is also produced by refineries now, and you get 2 from Ironworks as well. So it's odd for coal be the resource with much lower numbers on the map.

 

[tu_79]

Remember, there's a piece of code that adds a minimum amount of resources per player, so that's covered.

 

[azum4roll]

It doesn't make sense for the map size though. Compare it to the amount of other resources on the same map: there is 189 Iron, 220 oil, and 283 aluminium! Only 138 horses, but that's OK. You can get by with 2 or 4 horses. Especially if you have iron - and you will always have one or the other.

Trading for coal doesn't really work, because the AI uses all the coal they have access to fairly quickly. There are 12 other civs in my current game and there is 0 coal available for trade from anyone at present.

I know that there is an element of luck here, and I'm happy to take the good with the bad up to a point. I always settle wide to have the best chances I can. There is a limit at which it just feels bad though. I have the third largest empire and only 2 coal total. By contrast I have 21 aluminium!

Edit: Consider also that aluminium gets produced by recyling plants - and you get more of it than you do coal from refineries. Iron is also produced by refineries now, and you get 2 from Ironworks as well. So it's odd for coal be the resource with much lower numbers on the map.

It's hard to give different numbers per player for different map sizes, especially since you can change the number of players as well. We'll have to scale the number of refineries and recycle plants with map size too if we want the perfect balance.

Coal stands out because you want 2 per city, and you get more cities in huge.

EDIT: Actually no, number of strategics scales with number of plots, which should be proportional to number of cities. It's only the number of refineries being the problem. Try changing that to 7-8 per player maybe?

 

[JamesNinelives]

Actually no, number of strategics scales with number of plots

That's what I'm saying. The number of resources per land area is disproportionate. Look at the numbers I gave: 283 Aluminium vs 100 Coal. If it's primarily assigned per plot, there are going to be the same resource ratios on different map sizes as well.

It's only the number of refineries being the problem. Try changing that to 7-8 per player maybe?

That's a potential fix, but remember that refineries each currently give 1 coal and 1 iron. More refineries would increase the iron as well, and there's probably enough of it already. If the current resourece numbers stay, I may argue for changing refineries back to 2 coal each. I would prefer for the amount naturally generated to be closer to the previous balance though.

Remember, there's a piece of code that adds a minimum amount of resources per player, so that's covered.

That's true, and if the ratios are the same I suspect it may be kicking in on some stardard setups already. I'm going to play a few more games to get more data.