C2C Graphics

[Taxman66]

White background won't work with the white nails of the claw. You'd have to either change the claw nails to black; or pick a different background color (I'm still partial to using gray shades). though black nails might work well too.

I'm not so sure the deer would look good on a white background given the white spots. It'd have to be a more mature deer (i.e. without spots), or an off-white (perhaps a very pale yellow, or light beige or light gray)

 

[Thunderbrd]

I suppose I'm the only one that likes them as they are eh? lol... I think the point is not 'white' but rather to increase contrast a bit. A lighter green under the claw can help it stand out. A deer coloring is what it is specifically to reduce contrast with nearly any background to make it harder to see. I could probably use a faint dark glow just right around the deer to enhance the contrast enough to get the deer to pop but I would advise just playing with ways to enhance contrast in general.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't think a white border would help either. I just think that you need to get the contrast right.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I don't think a white border would help either. I just think that you need to get the contrast right.

Agreed.

 

[strategyonly]

@WToffer

Dont like ur new PM, it has waay to many hills/mountains, it keeps cutting me off on lands(3 new games, same results), and well makes it very boring to play, plus too much Tundra/taiga.

 

[Toffer90]

@WToffer

Dont like ur new PM, it has waay to many hills/mountains, it keeps cutting me off on lands(3 new games, same results), and well makes it very boring to play, plus too much Tundra/taiga.

K. it has less mountains and hills than the old PM though; and I really like having mountain chains that blocks of certain routes for armies, so I'll probably not reduce the number of peaks/hills.
I think the taiga amount is just right.

EDIT: I'll look into making an option for less hills and peaks. But first I want to make the polar-cap ocean-feature "Ice" scale with mapsize.

 

[strategyonly]

K. it has less mountains and hills than the old PM though; and I really like having mountain chains that blocks of certain routes for armies, so I'll probably not reduce the number of peaks/hills.
I think the taiga amount is just right.

EDIT: I'll look into making an option for less hills and peaks. But first I want to make the polar-cap ocean-feature "Ice" scale with mapsize.

Ice is one of the reason, i dont use certain map, infact I HATE Ice, . .

 

[Toffer90]

Ice is one of the reason, i dont use certain map, infact I HATE Ice, . .

Because it has low yield or is it the graphics of it?

I can respect your opinion, though I do think the Ice terrain has a place in C2C.

I will of keep my preferences isolated to that specific mapscript, if you want any specific changes in any other mapscripts I can have a look without letting subjectivity drive my decisions.

 

[strategyonly]

OK tried again 6 times, and 6 times i ended up just like this one, that why i dont like stuff like this, no offense. . . .

is it maybe because i pick start ANYPLACE?? but always same plots??

EDIT: Just tried a Gigantic map and dont see and cows(infact only animals i see is sheep for a resource), gems, gold, and very very sparsely is Copper and iron, on one island only 1 copper and 1 iron, and that is a HUGE island??(has something changed in the resource area, maybe???)

 

[Toffer90]

OK tried again 6 times, and 6 times i ended up just like this one, that why i dont like stuff like this, no offense. . . .

is it maybe because i pick start ANYPLACE?? but always same plots??

I haven't changed anything about the starting position code...
That should still be standard PM.
I can have a look at that algorithm to see if I can manage to push starting positions closer to the equator.

EDIT: Just tried a Gigantic map and dont see and cows(infact only animals i see is sheep for a resource), gems, gold, and very very sparsely is Copper and iron, on one island only 1 copper and 1 iron, and that is a HUGE island??(has something changed in the resource area, maybe???)

Again, standard PM, something for me to work on I guess.

 

[JosEPh_II]

OK tried again 6 times, and 6 times i ended up just like this one, that why i dont like stuff like this, no offense. . . .

is it maybe because i pick start ANYPLACE?? but always same plots??

Have you noticed that almost all the Civs that are native American, US, or Canadian All start at the Top 1/4 of the Maps. And all Australian and ones like the Maori all start at the Bottom 1/4 of a map.

I thought only the GEM type maps would place a Civ close to it's "supposed" origin point on a map.

I really get Tired of starting as Deganiwida, Sitting bull, Lincoln, etc just at the edge of the Northern Tundra. And this was on PM a lot.

So how are the starting places assigned for each chosen civ in the set of a map? And is there a "Tag" that says Place Iroquois at North latitude 80*N or some such?

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

I haven't changed anything about the starting position code...
That should still be standard PM.
I can have a look at that algorithm to see if I can manage to push starting positions closer to the equator.

Again, standard PM, something for me to work on I guess.

i wrote more in above, also can u look at the Smart and Full of resources mapscripts, they are NOT working correctly?? thx, i have asked AIAndy to but he doesnt answer , and well isnt working on C2C anymore for some reason??

 

[Toffer90]

Also I want to say that all the changes I made to PM was done in 1 day and that I've never done anything meaningful in python before. I felt the outcome was better than standard PM but haven't had much time to test it. I've only generated one map with it since I put it on the SVN.

i wrote more in above, also can u look at the Smart and Full of resources mapscripts, they are NOT working correctly?? thx, i have asked AIAndy to but he doesnt answer , and well isnt working on C2C anymore for some reason??

In what ways are they not working correctly?

 

[JosEPh_II]

Also I want to say that all the changes I made to PM was done in 1 day and that I've never done anything meaningful in python before. I felt the outcome was better than standard PM but haven't had much time to test it. I've only generated one map with it since I put it on the SVN.

I don't even want to discourage what you are doing here. No way. I think it's something that Needs to be done and have attention paid to it. And I'm happy you are putting in the effort to do something. Thanks!

JosEPh

 

[Toffer90]

I don't even want to discourage what you are doing here. No way. I think it's something that Needs to be done and have attention paid to it. And I'm happy you are putting in the effort to do something. Thanks!

JosEPh

True, I've longed for some changes to mapscripts for a long time myself now.

My python/mapscript inexperience is the reason why I made a new mapscripts instead of changing the existing ones. What I learn from that testing ground may benefit the other mapscripts in the long run. ^^


Edit: It's okay, or rather I encourage anyone, to use this thread for discussing mapscripts. They are visual enough to count as C2C graphics.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I've longed for some changes to mapscripts for a long time myself now.

Whisperr and I agree. Some good strong thinking on how to improve or at least give toggles for crafting the mapscript to a player's liking would be wonderful stuff. It's one of our rather large deficiencies that can lead to a lot of frustrations.

 

[Harrier]

I haven't changed anything about the starting position code...
That should still be standard PM.
I can have a look at that algorithm to see if I can manage to push starting positions closer to the equator.

Again, standard PM, something for me to work on I guess.

Probably standard Civ/BTS problem. When I have tried random starts on my pre-made maps (no-presets) They nearly always start in the same position (human player always in Russia in SEM+). So not really random - should work better on random maps - but the code must have some strong preferences.

Just a thought.

Whisperr and I agree. Some good strong thinking on how to improve or at least give toggles for crafting the mapscript to a player's liking would be wonderful stuff. It's one of our rather large deficiencies that can lead to a lot of frustrations.

The Totestra map script based on PW2 does that.

It gives an interface that allows you to set various parameters, without having to edit the map script itself. I think it also included a few bug fixes after Cephalo stopped updating PW2.

It does however use spaces instead of tabs. So comparing it to C2CPW is horrendous. But if I remember correctly, Notepad can partially change that with one command.

It claimed to be compatible with C2C, but was not as many features were missing back then. Even more so now.

But maybe the user interface can be ported across if nothing else.

 

[Toffer90]

So not really random - should work better on random maps - but the code must have some strong preferences.

Higher difficulty increases the chance of getting a polar starting position though.

As the best spots is delegated to the AI before the player on higher diff.
On deity you always get the worst spots as all the other AI have been given the better ones. this could of course be adjusted or removed completely.

This can be adjusted in handicapInfos, I think the tag is called "StartingPercent".

 

[strategyonly]

The Big Game Hunters "sword" is PINK?

 

[tmv]

A bit too early in the tech tree for a Jedi, I think.