C2C - Building Review Thread

[Thunderbrd]

You could go a step further and add an "inventory" for hunters and they need to go back to your capital when they are "full" or they can't store more from killing.

A planned option indeed. One I hope we can come to rely upon for the nomadic start eventually.

And regarding the Master Hunter; I can imagine that if you were able to kill a tiger, you are a celebrety in your Clan. Therefore, I'd say that killing dangerous animals should also make a Master Hunter possible.

I know what DH is saying but you gotta admit, stupid or not, he'd be honored as a powerful tribal protector. I agree with you on this one.

 

[Faustmouse]

A planned option indeed. One I hope we can come to rely upon for the nomadic start eventually.

It would be cool if the Nomadic Start could be a "Team Project" goal for Dec 2014. Even if you are working on so cool other stuff.

I know what DH is saying but you gotta admit, stupid or not, he'd be honored as a powerful tribal protector. I agree with you on this one.

I can see that people that wander around and hunting dangerous animals would be threaded as idiots. But if a tiger attacks the tribe then the slayer would be a hero I guess.

 

[Yudishtira]

Currently Master Hunter can be built by any unit that produces enough only. I think I set it at 6 or more. I felt that that early in the game this was the only consideration people would give for what a master hinter did. I may have changed my mind mid way through and said 6 or 6.

I keep meaning to go through all the animals and make sure I have the amount of food and hammers from a kill, and butchering consistent but I never get the time. Food is just edible meat but hammers represent antlers, horn, bones, teeth, claws, fur/skin etc. so it would be good to look at separating that so there would be a bit more technology related variation. Antlers for example provide more hammers because they were used as picks to dig out dirt and stone, small bones were used as needles and awls and so on.

If you wanted to look into that I would appreciate it.

For me this mission's rationale is: "S/he killed one of them so s/he must be a good enough hunter to teach others."

Current list that can build Master Hunter:

Spoiler :

Moon Bear (ASIANBEAR)
Bison
Boar
Pig
Warthog
Bongo
Buffalo
Caribou
Cave Bear
Cave Lion
Aurochs
Direwolf
Elephant
Gemsbok
Gerenuk
Gharial
Gorilla
Grizzly
Hasst's Eagle
Hippo
Horse
Ibex
Impala
Red Kangaroo
Lion Pack
Moa
Moose
Mouflon
Musk Ox
Okapi
Polar Bear
Rhino
Alligator
Nile Croc
Large Croc
Small Croc
Saiga
Sealion (Land)
(Stag) Deer
Walrus
Wildebeest
Mammoth
Indian Rhino
White Rhino
Sabretooth

I suggest to remove:
Gerenuk, Ibex, Mouflon, Okapi, Pig, Saiga

...and add:
Bengal Tiger, Black Rhino, (Brown/Black) Bear, Cheetah, Eagle, Wolf, Gazelle, Grey Kangaroo, Lion, Panda Bear, Procoptodon, Siberian Tiger, Snow Leopard.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Pigs etc are much more dangerous than any of those you are proposing to add.

 

[Yudishtira]

Pigs etc are much more dangerous than any of those you are proposing to add.

1. Boars are already there. Pigs don't represent 'razorbacks' or whatever... And WTH with your etc. Goats more dangerous than tigers?

2. Besides most of mine are for consistency with what's already there. If a Black Bear shouldn't be there, a Moon Bear certainly shouldn't.

3. AND as I said, it's not about danger per se, I see it as about impressing people he knows what he's doing (rightly or wrongly perhaps).

 

[Yudishtira]

Any serious objections to this change, now that I can do it myself? It is basically an easy fix of a long-standing bug.

 

[Faustmouse]

Well, it make it a bit too easy to obtain the Master Hunter... But so did the fact that GG can build this "Free Master Hunter building in every city" thing.
I would limit it to the stronger animals (Strenght 3+ or 5+ if the animal strenght is increased as promised) and not the hard to catch ones.

 

[Yudishtira]

Well, it make it a bit too easy to obtain the Master Hunter... But so did the fact that GG can build this "Free Master Hunter building in every city" thing.
I would limit it to the stronger animals (Strenght 3+ or 5+ if the animal strenght is increased as promised) and not the hard to catch ones.

So show me which you would remove and add (from the original list in the spoiler please).

I've put some actual thought, time and work into this - and at DH's request above. I stand by my inclusion of the Cheetah, Eagle and Wolf, based on the status and magic attached to their pelts/feathers especially (but not only) in early eras.

 

[Faustmouse]

It depends if what a Master Hunter actually IS. If he is a master in hunting animals that are usefull for your empire like Eagles for feathers, Bisons for Food etc; or if he is just someone who killed a very dangerous animal successfully...

I would remove Eagle, Wolf, Gazelle, Cheetah and Snow Leopard maybe, but if you want to keep them I'm ok with that. For me, the Master Hunter is a (quite frustrating) early achievement that HAS to be done, and I think it is a very cool game element that you have to beat a dangerous animal with your very weak first hunters. I'm afraid that if you make it too "easy" to get (with Eagles and Wolves), it takes out a lot of this "fun". UNLESS these animals get a boost, like wolves in greater numbers, Eagles can fly away easily etc.

 

[Yudishtira]

I would remove Eagle, Wolf, Gazelle, Cheetah and Snow Leopard maybe, but if you want to keep them I'm ok with that. For me, the Master Hunter is a (quite frustrating) early achievement that HAS to be done, and I think it is a very cool game element that you have to beat a dangerous animal with your very weak first hunters. I'm afraid that if you make it too "easy" to get (with Eagles and Wolves), it takes out a lot of this "fun". UNLESS these animals get a boost, like wolves in greater numbers, Eagles can fly away easily etc.

I really hate it when gameplay arguments are stronger than realism ones! If others agree, I take your point about Eagles and normal Wolves and might remove them.

Snow Leopards are rare and occur only on extreme terrain (I know some people break the mod by turning terrain damage off, but I don't know how to make it conditional on them not doing that...). Cheetahs are so rare that I took a screenie of the only one I have so far seen in my current game. Gazelles are rare and their grace and beauty imbues them with magic, so that to kill one (respectfully) implies you have the favour of the spirits. I would not remove them.

 

[Thunderbrd]

You know what I think we should do?

I think this discussion verges on touching on some territory that has frustrated me for a while (not as bad as it used to because there's been a lot of good adjustments made to this structure since the beginning - but still some issues I think.) We do have some disharmony still in the values of our animal units' challenge ratings. Part of the discord in determining what is and what is not sufficiently capable of producing a Hunting Lodge seems to me to be based on this.

I do think it may be that we should consider the animal's withdrawal abilities to indicate a powerful 'master' hunter as well BUT I'm also considering disabling all withdrawal values on animals (if not playing with Fight or Flight) based on DH's concerns there... I may do that this weekend actually now that I remind myself of it.

But if you ARE considering the speed of the animal, a Deer, a Hawk, an Eagle, a Cheetah... all would be impressive feats to take them down. But then so would a songbird so y'know...

Perhaps it should simply be based on the strength of the animal. I think we should isolate all animals on a new document, show their strengths and arrange them by strength (let's not get into size matters adjustments in that yet.) THEN we should take a look at whether those strengths are really all that rational and start suggesting some 1 up or 1 down adjustments there and discuss those suggestions out individually.

Size matters will work naturally with this. So we simply consider the strength or power of one individual animal and then compare them side by side with other animals in the same strength category. Wolves, for example, do NOT strike me as a strength 2 animal!!! I think even elephants and mammoths may be better off being given just a little MORE strength - what's the point of upgrading your hunting units past hunter level when the strongest can't even put up a decent fight against a hunter.

An animal master doc could also play into a project to develop a variety of animal AI settings and establishing those AIs on each there on the planning document would be a nice way to set that up initially. AI is going to be a growing focus for me so I may be wanting to get to that during this upcoming cycle as a way to dip my toes into some more basic AI before going full bore into larger and more complicated matters. Particularly since I'm looking to develop Size Matters AI considerations - the deepened animal AI would be a good juncture to work on that.

 

[Yudishtira]

Sorry but for the Master Hunter, strength alone is way way WAY too gamey and simplistic as the only criterion. And that's even if we got all the strengths perfect.

And getting the strengths perfect is no easy matter. An elephant is as strong as a tank in defence (exaggerating slightly), and maybe as strong as a unit of horsemen when he's charging. But when he goes off the boil (or you never bring him to the boil in the first place) then he'll go off and nibble a banana tree as if nothing happened.

So you need different strengths for different "modes" or even "moods". In FFH some units have different strengths in defence and attack. But you can achieve the same with (starting) promotions.

Then you have pack and herd animals, where size - as in number - really does matter. The strength of a herd of bison is off the scale - assuming you're in front of it when it stampedes. And while you may easily sneak up on a solitary bison, this is a much more difficult and risky endeavour when he's in a herd. Much the same goes for the pack of wolves or pride of lions, when you incur their ire and they attack en masse. You can't give six lions six times the strength of one, but the risk factor needs to increase by more than that much.

Anyway, big topic, too big for this thread...

 

[Thunderbrd]

So you're saying you feel that the strength values on our animals are rational as they are?

Obviously strength isn't the only factor - at least it should be obvious I feel that way given that I've implemented so many more animal concepts with Size Matters and Fight or Flight - I'm just suggesting to allow those options to encapsulate that for players that care to have the depth your talking about. Otherwise, allow the core to reflect a concept that all units are really only one individual or a set of 10 or whatever and balance from there. Size Matters will take care of different groupings of animals just fine (and it's one of the things I'll be working on right after release - a mechanism that varies their group sizes when spawned... that should be accompanied by some AI work for animals and for animals in consideration of Size Matters (merging and splitting).)

True this isn't the right thread for this discussion of course... I'm just suggesting, as the subject has come up, that we take some time to evaluate the unit strengths of animals as they seem to be far out of whack still.

EDIT: Oh... wait... you mean for establishing the master hunter lodge. Well... it's a better guideline to go off of than trying to rationalize what would impress given that just about anything could impress. You'd almost be better off selecting the animals that DON'T impress when hunted (like pigeons.) I dunno... it's just a very subjective discussion at that point where we'll have a lot of disagreements unless we assign the criteria based on difficulty to hunt the animal - and maybe strength isn't everything to consider there either but some very simple animals are very difficult to kill.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Any serious objections to this change, now that I can do it myself? It is basically an easy fix of a long-standing bug.

Yes I hate a lot of it. people forget how dangerous the ancestors of our domesticated animals were and how helpless humans were before stone tools.

Pigs - piglets aren't razorbacks but every other pig is especially so if it appears you are threatening the piglets.

I went by food and maybe hammers as the requirement for indicating a master hunter because hunting is about providing for the tribe. Defeating dangerous animals is about defense of the tribe a different thing entirely.

Post your suggested adjusted X<L here - I assume you have some and tested it. I will quickly go through it and see if I agree with it.

Don't forget Subdued Animals has been my baby since RoM and it is hard to let it go.

 

[Yudishtira]

Yes I hate a lot of it. people forget how dangerous the ancestors of our domesticated animals were and how helpless humans were before stone tools.

Pigs - piglets aren't razorbacks but every other pig is especially so if it appears you are threatening the piglets.

I went by food and maybe hammers as the requirement for indicating a master hunter because hunting is about providing for the tribe. Defeating dangerous animals is about defense of the tribe a different thing entirely.

Post your suggested adjusted X<L here - I assume you have some and tested it. I will quickly go through it and see if I agree with it.

Don't forget Subdued Animals has been my baby since RoM and it is hard to let it go.

I appreciate that it's your baby (and you're the mobmod boss) and I'm not going to make any changes you don't agree with. I totally realize and appreciate that you must've put a lot of actual time, thought and effort into this area.

But when you say dismissively that goats are more dangerous than tigers, and nothing further, I can only assume that to be your little joke.

Regarding the pigs: When we're talking about hunters, I suggest we need to think in terms of solitary animals. If we start thinking herds, no "hunter" with less than cluster bombs or Claymore mines would ever take down 100+ head of bison (let alone carry it home), so forget about herds. Then, we have an animal called a Boar, which I suggest represents a feral pig with tusks and the whole box and dice. Therefore the animal 'Pig' does not represent this.

Can you be more specific as to your other objections? If you disagree with all my changes, what about the inclusion of Moon Bears when Brown and Black Bears are excluded? What about one of two virtually identical Rhino species (ie. White and Black iirc) being in each group?

So can you please just specify which changes you don't agree with. (No I haven't written any XML yet because I find it easier to express myself in English...)

 

[Faustmouse]

When we're talking about hunters, I suggest we need to think in terms of solitary animals. If we start thinking herds, no "hunter" with less than cluster bombs or Claymore mines would ever take down 100+ head of bison (let alone carry it home), so forget about herds.

Yeah, but he also carries it home in 0 turns (instandly), no matter how far he is away from home. So he must be damn fast...

 

[Hydromancerx]

Regarding the pigs: When we're talking about hunters, I suggest we need to think in terms of solitary animals. If we start thinking herds, no "hunter" with less than cluster bombs or Claymore mines would ever take down 100+ head of bison (let alone carry it home), so forget about herds. Then, we have an animal called a Boar, which I suggest represents a feral pig with tusks and the whole box and dice. Therefore the animal 'Pig' does not represent this.

Well there are special circumstances where hunters have taken down a whole herd of Bison using Buffalo Jumps. Basically they scared bison off cliffs to kill them or at least break their legs so they can kill them at the bottom.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Can you be more specific as to your other objections? If you disagree with all my changes, what about the inclusion of Moon Bears when Brown and Black Bears are excluded? What about one of two virtually identical Rhino species (ie. White and Black iirc) being in each group?

So can you please just specify which changes you don't agree with. (No I haven't written any XML yet because I find it easier to express myself in English...)

The reason one is included and the other not is because the units were added at different times and I got the food or hammers wrong. That is why I suggested a review of the food and hammer return from the animals be done first. That way they would be consistent and we would have a base for further discussion. It is a pity that Koshling's XML Scanner does not work well with outcomes.

Yeah, but he also carries it home in 0 turns (instandly), no matter how far he is away from home. So he must be damn fast...

They do it in exactly the same way as they send back information about the map. However there is an option, well define not game option, which means the hunter has to escort the captured animals back. Read the concept page for details.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The reason one is included and the other not is because the units were added at different times and I got the food or hammers wrong. That is why I suggested a review of the food and hammer return from the animals be done first. That way they would be consistent and we would have a base for further discussion. It is a pity that Koshling's XML Scanner does not work well with outcomes.

We could add that to the pending animal chart. Probably a good idea.

 

[Snofru1]

Something about the Steampunk buildings Peat, Wood and Coal Fired Dynamo. I think that they are too easy to being built. Why would you want to have all 3 of them in a city, maybe together with a Coal Plant?:

• They should require Power Lines just like any other power station.
• They should need their prerequisite in the city radius so they are something special and can´t just be built everywhere. So they should nead Peat, Prime Timber or Coal.