Breaking Save Game Compatibility for v37
- Thread starter Thunderbrd
- Start date
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I'm looking at the animals and spawning in particular plots and I can see why bNeutralOnly set to 0 would allow animals to spawn within borders.
Unfortunately it also allows them to spawn on both cities (which could be very dangerous though all animals have cannot capture so SHOULDN'T be an issue) and improvements, which I feel many animals wouldn't do even if they would spawn inside borders.
This gets me back to bAnimalIgnoresBorders. To fix this really, on unit infos I could make it iAnimalIgnoresBorders:
0 = NO
1 or more = can spawn and move into owned territory but not plots with cities or improvements(perhaps with the exception of preserves, which would mean another bool on improvements to create an exception so the plot may be considered unimproved for this improvement)
2 or more = can move onto improved plots but still not cities
3 or more = can move into cities (but this doesn't mean they can capture - this would more mean that the unit has the abilities of bBlendIntoCity - the difference being that unitcombats and promos can add to iAnimalIgnoresBorders and can push animals to greater bravery in intermingling with humans.)
Unfortunately it also allows them to spawn on both cities (which could be very dangerous though all animals have cannot capture so SHOULDN'T be an issue) and improvements, which I feel many animals wouldn't do even if they would spawn inside borders.
This gets me back to bAnimalIgnoresBorders. To fix this really, on unit infos I could make it iAnimalIgnoresBorders:
0 = NO
1 or more = can spawn and move into owned territory but not plots with cities or improvements(perhaps with the exception of preserves, which would mean another bool on improvements to create an exception so the plot may be considered unimproved for this improvement)
2 or more = can move onto improved plots but still not cities
3 or more = can move into cities (but this doesn't mean they can capture - this would more mean that the unit has the abilities of bBlendIntoCity - the difference being that unitcombats and promos can add to iAnimalIgnoresBorders and can push animals to greater bravery in intermingling with humans.)
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
The chance of subduing a horse or elephant is the same as the chance of subduing a quoll. There are more quolls around so you get more chances.
I did change the display of the chance so that it was more accurate than it was before, it could have been off by up to 10% but no changes were made to the chances.
The test is all based on the unit making the attack and its promotions the only thing the attacked unit affects is the unit your will get, which is why you used to get a mammoth when you subdued a duck for a while. It had the wrong unit name in the XML.
Bear and Bison riders are World Wonder units. I recently fixed the bug that let you build the wonder and then not be able to build the unit and long ago I fixed the problem where anyone could build the unit if someone built the Wonder - they were sort of acting like nukes in that way. [On a side note - I just watched a youtube episode on domestication and why you can't domesticate deer, bison or bears in the prehistoric era. It even mentioned the game Civilization. The video was actually about plagues and how you need domesticated animals in cities to get plagues.]
Not really sure what you mean...
But in general it would be nice if animals with low aggression backed off more than animals with high aggression. If you were to tweak something I would rather have the change in AI based on parameters already established than creating new ones.
Yeah.
If my post don't make sense, sorry, I'm drunk.
Should all animals have the same subdue chance?
Some animals are surely more difficult to subdue, like a singular saltwater crocodile (I know, prime example. researchers today would kill for the opportunity to examine a living large saltwater crocodile, I'm sure.)
A jaguar might be more difficult to subdue (even if it is a kitten along it's mother) than a baby penguin along it's flock is.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
S'ok! lol.
At the moment, animals with low aggression do back away from visible threats. The problem is that you want to make animals that would never back away from an opponent a very low agression (to none) to represent that the animal also wouldn't go out of the way to attack a distant enemy. Badgers, for example, would never back away from its territory no matter what was approaching, instead taking a stand savagely wherever it makes its home. Such animals may also not 'wander' about on the map. There's really currently nothing to guide these differences in behavior.
"would never back away from its territory no matter what was approaching"
What defines its territory?
Are you talking about animals being inclined to a stationary behavior.
EDIT: Read it again, so... Right, this might be an interesting tag, but not truly necessary I think.
Spoiler :
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah, pretty much. Some animals should pretty much stay where they spawn and not care if anyone approaches and savagely defend themselves if anyone does, rather than trying to avoid a fight. "It's Territory" would be defined as 'where it is'.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
WARNING Save Game Compatibility.
TO ALL PLAYERS Do NOt Update to SVN 9127 IF you wish to Continue previous SVN version Games.
ONLY use SVN 9127 If you want to start a NEW game.
Seems players are coming back and not seeing these Notices. Starting New Threads and placing Bug reports that deal Directly with the latest set of SVN that were Posted to be Save Game Breaking.
So here is Another one to Warn.
JosEPh
TO ALL PLAYERS Do NOt Update to SVN 9127 IF you wish to Continue previous SVN version Games.
ONLY use SVN 9127 If you want to start a NEW game.
Seems players are coming back and not seeing these Notices. Starting New Threads and placing Bug reports that deal Directly with the latest set of SVN that were Posted to be Save Game Breaking.
So here is Another one to Warn.
JosEPh
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
@Toffer:
The more I think about bTerritorial, the more I want to include it. We're doing so well right now at enhancing animal behaviors that I don't want to overlook this. This would also be a tag that could influence which buildup promos the animals take. I saw a Giant Red Kangaroo with the retreat plans buildup and thought that was cool for him but for a badger, for example, it would be better to have a fortification (maybe even an improved fortification) buildup.
Additionally, I'm also thinking about animal grouping behaviors. Some animals will seek to travel in packs, others in massive herds, others completely solo. So rather than just 'wandering about' I'm trying to envision some ways we can influence them here as well. Would spotting another member of their species mean they want to draw closer, stay within sight but not right on the same plot with each other (for those who would pack hunt with surround and destroy for example), or would they seek to put distance between each other (like tigers) so that they have better defined hunting territories. Would they be completely neutral to this?
Once we can define some of these behaviors we can also start working on (for size matters) merging and splitting tactics for animals and the spawning of more animals from animals that exist. However, I'm hoping to include some setting up for nomadic starts in that, having animals collecting food like a nomadic group would and having them spawn as the food collection reaches a certain threshold, (whereas nomadic groups would just grow in population until they hit a threshold where they take a step up in group volume). THIS, btw, is one big reason to have animals hunting animals. Some animals would only GAIN food by successfully hunting while other animals would gain food from the land plots.
Master plans are coming together here... stuff that I haven't ever really brought up. This animal thing is actually a major step forwards towards the vision of Nomadic Starts.
To All: I'm catching some of the reported bugs as I'm going through some of the things I'm currently working on and should have a more stable dll on the SVN within some few hrs here today. There could still be some more instabilities to find and repair - and this was something I figured would be the case after the last update as I said then. But with further playing and catching these instability points that relate to the initiation of the NPC teams at an awkward place in the code since the exe won't do it for us, eventually we'll uncover and address all the little hidden problem spots.
The more I think about bTerritorial, the more I want to include it. We're doing so well right now at enhancing animal behaviors that I don't want to overlook this. This would also be a tag that could influence which buildup promos the animals take. I saw a Giant Red Kangaroo with the retreat plans buildup and thought that was cool for him but for a badger, for example, it would be better to have a fortification (maybe even an improved fortification) buildup.
Additionally, I'm also thinking about animal grouping behaviors. Some animals will seek to travel in packs, others in massive herds, others completely solo. So rather than just 'wandering about' I'm trying to envision some ways we can influence them here as well. Would spotting another member of their species mean they want to draw closer, stay within sight but not right on the same plot with each other (for those who would pack hunt with surround and destroy for example), or would they seek to put distance between each other (like tigers) so that they have better defined hunting territories. Would they be completely neutral to this?
Once we can define some of these behaviors we can also start working on (for size matters) merging and splitting tactics for animals and the spawning of more animals from animals that exist. However, I'm hoping to include some setting up for nomadic starts in that, having animals collecting food like a nomadic group would and having them spawn as the food collection reaches a certain threshold, (whereas nomadic groups would just grow in population until they hit a threshold where they take a step up in group volume). THIS, btw, is one big reason to have animals hunting animals. Some animals would only GAIN food by successfully hunting while other animals would gain food from the land plots.
Master plans are coming together here... stuff that I haven't ever really brought up. This animal thing is actually a major step forwards towards the vision of Nomadic Starts.
To All: I'm catching some of the reported bugs as I'm going through some of the things I'm currently working on and should have a more stable dll on the SVN within some few hrs here today. There could still be some more instabilities to find and repair - and this was something I figured would be the case after the last update as I said then. But with further playing and catching these instability points that relate to the initiation of the NPC teams at an awkward place in the code since the exe won't do it for us, eventually we'll uncover and address all the little hidden problem spots.
OK, I didn't realize the full picture of your plans for it. As long as it doesn't make those animals completely stationary I have no real objections to it.@Toffer:
The more I think about bTerritorial, the more I want to include it. We're doing so well right now at enhancing animal behaviors that I don't want to overlook this. This would also be a tag that could influence which buildup promos the animals take. I saw a Giant Red Kangaroo with the retreat plans buildup and thought that was cool for him but for a badger, for example, it would be better to have a fortification (maybe even an improved fortification) buildup.
Additionally, I'm also thinking about animal grouping behaviors. Some animals will seek to travel in packs, others in massive herds, others completely solo. So rather than just 'wandering about' I'm trying to envision some ways we can influence them here as well. Would spotting another member of their species mean they want to draw closer, stay within sight but not right on the same plot with each other (for those who would pack hunt with surround and destroy for example), or would they seek to put distance between each other (like tigers) so that they have better defined hunting territories. Would they be completely neutral to this?
Once we can define some of these behaviors we can also start working on (for size matters) merging and splitting tactics for animals and the spawning of more animals from animals that exist. However, I'm hoping to include some setting up for nomadic starts in that, having animals collecting food like a nomadic group would and having them spawn as the food collection reaches a certain threshold, (whereas nomadic groups would just grow in population until they hit a threshold where they take a step up in group volume). THIS, btw, is one big reason to have animals hunting animals. Some animals would only GAIN food by successfully hunting while other animals would gain food from the land plots.
Master plans are coming together here... stuff that I haven't ever really brought up. This animal thing is actually a major step forwards towards the vision of Nomadic Starts.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Some animals would be wouldn't they? They 'claim' their territory (aka where they spawn) and that's pretty much it. I'm not saying a territorial tag would necessarily make them this way however... The way I envision the tag effect would be that they would simply never desire to seek safety from a visible foe, which currently any animal less than 2 (final tallied) aggression will do.
As for the wandering behavior, perhaps if animals are collecting food, and there is a depletion counter when food is collected that recovers gradually (a concept infused into the Nomadic Start plan) then when food 'runs out' for a time, those animals that are territorial will move to the next plot with the most food but otherwise they wouldn't tend to move much. Said behavior could also be adapted when they see other animals of the same species. At that point, another control, as discussed in the last post which I haven't identified a tag for at this time, would dictate whether they would ignore the other animal, move away from the other animal of the species, or move in closer, or even move in to overlap with each other and merge if possible.
Some, yes, but most species change territory (may be several generations before they do though) depending on predator proximity, food availability, environmental changes and interspecies rivalry. On the other hand, some species have extremely large territories that on some map sizes may span several tiles.
Sounds good. ^^
1. Not really sure what this entails, would they be treated differently as a threat based on their team affiliation?
2. Those promos usually also gives bonus against ruffians, so we could just give Neanderthals the ruffian unitcombat.
3. Sounds a bit over the top, however we do already have a flag and civ leader for Neanderthals, so it might be the natural way to go.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yes. As part of an animal team, they would qualify anywhere isAnimal() is called from CvUnit (but not CvUnitInfos, the underlying unit data, which is based on the Animal unitcombat instead.) That's a lot of complication.
Not as much vs ruffians on those as you get for barbs. Additionally, brutes and such have 'vs barbs' ability as a base and that's supposed to measure up against neanderthals for the most part.
I don't think it is over the top actually. It would be cool to have Neanders capable of having their own cities and conflicting equally with other human barbarians as much as the players do. As a separate species of Homo they would be similar but in competition with all other homos. This sets us up, too, for potentially including other homo species like the hobbits perhaps. There would be easily followed precedents in the code after making this adjustment.
EDIT: Ok, so I WANT to do the 4th NPC slot for Neanderthals BUT this now is not something that would break future saves when it gets implemented. Neither are additional animal AI factors beyond what are currently enabled by current tags. Therefore, while these are going to be very very high priority projects, I would like to move towards getting us past this save game breakage period and get to work on the cleanup side of the project. The only reason I'm thinking of delaying that is so that further bug reports of instabilities caused by the NPC split can be more easily addressed without doing much more to break saves immediately. However, regardless, the Neanderthal project would be fairly involved again so for now, making them barbs would be more suitable. We can split them out from there in a few weeks.
Good good. My changes to animals should be ready tonight.
Then I can start playing the game again, looking for oddities.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
FYI I notice from the Quick Modder Questions thread that the EXE has a hard limit of 62 player nations and 52 leaders.
Just to keep you aware, I am following these discussions. Also noticed you uploaded one of my spawninfo files.
Is it possible for e.g. animal nations, to be leaderless.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
We're within that still. Currently 40 potential players + 11 NPC slots = 51 potential player nations in total (no more leaders than players.)
Cool... from my initial observations, I have to wonder if some of the settings are inverted but I'd like to see something more up to date before making any judgements.Just to keep you aware, I am following these discussions. Also noticed you uploaded one of my spawninfo files.
No. But the 'barbarian' leader is currently set to be their leader (he clones himself apparently) which is a good shortcut for now on some python issues that would be introduced if we setup new NPC leaders (which we should do nevertheless... so at some point soon I'll sort out the python issues with that.)
