C2C SVN Changelog

[strategyonly]

I dont think the faster game modes caused any trouble. In fact I played them exclusively for the last four years. I know the map sizes were problematic, but what made you do this?

We did not have time to balance any of these nor did we really need to, because these would actually ruin a game of C2C and the actions taken by the modders of C2C. They would like to have their actions appreciated and at these speeds they would not have.

 

[Hydromancerx]

[*]Upgrades of buildings now count as prereqs for the purposes of other buildings' prerequisites. Will be working on making this true for units and multiple buildings built requirements. This will work out to 3 layers of building upgrades out from the indicated prerequisite building.

Ex: Until now, buildings that required a Stable would no longer be buildable as soon as you built a Knight's stable because the Knight's Stable (an upgrade of the stable) would fully replace the Stable. This adjustment will make those buildings that require a Stable recognize that a Knight's Stable counts as a Stable and will therefore not stop being buildable due to the Knight's Stable having replaced their prerequisite building as an upgrade.

This won't break things for situations that might not want that to happen?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

All the ban ordinances for example?

 

[Hydromancerx]

All the ban ordinances for example?

Yeah and possibly the Pest (Pigeon) and Falconry School too.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The fact that upgrades will remove critical prerequisites was a problem in numerous areas of the game. I apologize for any inconvenience. Didn't realize we were relying on a flaw as part of our design but it doesn't greatly surprise me considering how clever y'all are and how capable we tend to be in making lemonade from lemons.

Since we have an alternative way to approach the issues this may present we should seek to identify when and where such issues would be a problem and utilize the PrereqNotBuildingClasses tag:

<PrereqNotBuildingClasses>
	<PrereqNotBuildingClass>
		<BuildingClassMustNotHave>BUILDINGCLASS_THAT_DENIES_WHEN_PRESENT</BuildingClassMustNotHave>
		<bPrereqNot>1</bPrereqNot>
	</PrereqNotBuildingClass>
</PrereqNotBuildingClasses>

instead.

Uses of this tag would completely override any extended qualification the new method may offer with upgraded buildings. So, in the case where we are relying on an upgrade to disable a prerequisite, simply making the building unbuildable when the upgraded version is present will successfully achieve the same result.

It should be much easier to allow upgrading buildings to count as their predecessors for building (and after next commit: unit and #of building type throughout nation) prereqs than it would be to identify all those spots where it is a problem and add the upgrade buildings to the lists of OR prerequisites.

Problem was most noteworthy with the Knight's Stable overriding the Stable but it was also a problem previously with the Hippodrome wonder overriding the Stable. There are other areas that were proving problematic previously as well.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

There is already a can't build in a city that has any of X, Y , Z in it. It is part of basic Civ IV. Is this the same tag? We used to have it that you could not build Newton's Collage in the same city as Oxford University.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There is already a can't build in a city that has any of X, Y , Z in it. It is part of basic Civ IV. Is this the same tag? We used to have it that you could not build Newton's Collage in the same city as Oxford University.

Yeah... it's not a tag I made. It's already there and in use in some places. I'm just saying that's the way we would be able to correct the buildings this change makes erroneous.

 

[Faustmouse]

7200: Added some new promotions for Capture Chance and resistance.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Updates (SVN#s: 7198/7199)

• Building upgrades count as the upgraded building for purposes of unit and #of buildings in nation to qualify prereqs.
  
  
• A serviceable (though imperfect) fix for property modifiers from combat classes and promotions on unit displays.
  
  
• Banned Barbarians from getting Heroes. (This seems to cause an issue for some python somewhere... I'll need the team to be on the lookout for this. I'm not clear on how to make use of python error messages.) I will be more than happy to setup a boolean tag for hero units to be able to ignore this barrier if we want some heroes specifically FOR barbarians. I'm hoping I can still hold out for Alberts2 to finish his new schema method before I add any new tags though. Don't wanna set him back on that project.

@Mouse: NICE!!!! I'll have to get those into my game pronto - looking to capture a lot more than I have been in this war I'm in!

I think that brings the Capture modifiers to a close for now (until more tags for evaluating the enemy's civics and not just your own anyhow.) Oh... I wanted to say too - experiencing the capture modifiers on the civics in play - wow... really motivates you to select otherwise less beneficial civics. Bravo! We did an awesome job with those!

 

[strategyonly]

[*]Banned Barbarians from getting Heroes. (This seems to cause an issue for some python somewhere... I'll need the team to be on the lookout for this. I'm not clear on how to make use of python error messages.) I will be more than happy to setup a boolean tag for hero units to be able to ignore this barrier if we want some heroes specifically FOR barbarians. I'm hoping I can still hold out for Alberts2 to finish his new schema method before I add any new tags though. Don't wanna set him back on that project.

Why did you do this, i liked it when barbs had Heroes??

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Why did you do this, i liked it when barbs had Heroes??

If they got the culture for the hero rather than spawning them out of thin air it would be OK. However they don't and there is no way to know that the culture you are building no longer has any heroes because the barbarians built them.

 

[0100010]

Why did you do this, i liked it when barbs had Heroes??

Then make some barbarian only heroes.

 

[LumenAngel]

If they got the culture for the hero rather than spawning them out of thin air it would be OK. However they don't and there is no way to know that the culture you are building no longer has any heroes because the barbarians built them.

Culture are World Wonder, so if barbs build them, you cant build them again...

 

[Toffer90]

Culture are World Wonder, so if barbs build them, you cant build them again...

The same can be said about normal civs. If barbs build a wonder they deserve it, as they are usually far behind in tech. It also bring more dynamic and diversity to the barbarians which I, at least, welcome.
What DH said is a valid point; if barbarian spawn took into account the unit requirement, barbarian heroes would be cool.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't realize this was the SVN thread. Guys/gals, this discussion should go elsewhere.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Requiring them to build the culture prereq is not all that valid either. As soon as one barbarian city has it, they all have it. Furthermore, to keep Barbarians from ruining other spots in the game, barbs may not build any type of wonder (who needs them to anyhow - they should be building defenses and units and for the most part by their AI that's about all they will.)

To answer your question SO, for days here on the forum we've been discussing this and my take on the matter is that I like that barbs may occasionally have access to a super unit out there but what is absolutely wrong about the way it was happening here was that it would deny the player that rightfully earned (or was lucky enough to earn) a culture the inability to build the rare hero unit he should've been able to unlock by getting that culture. The barbs were likely to spawn the Global Unit before the player would be able to get the reward for his culture. Not cool.

To make a Barb Hero is going to require a new tag but ultimately it's the way to go. No requiring them to build a culture - just give them one or two each era perhaps. But continuing to allow them to undermine the accomplishments of a player is not good form.

 

[strategyonly]

To answer your question SO, for days here on the forum we've been discussing this and my take on the matter is that I like that barbs may occasionally have access to a super unit out there but what is absolutely wrong about the way it was happening here was that it would deny the player that rightfully earned (or was lucky enough to earn) a culture the inability to build the rare hero unit he should've been able to unlock by getting that culture. The barbs were likely to spawn the Global Unit before the player would be able to get the reward for his culture. Not cool..

If it was cheating, then i understand.

 

[Thunderbrd]

It was stemming directly from the normal barbarian spawn mechanism. A random valid unit pick for spawning. Spawns do not check to make sure the barbarians have a given prereq bonus (resource), only that they have the tech to GET that resource. Otherwise you'd never see Barbarian Axemen or Swordsmen. This bypass of prerequisites was enabling them to spawn heroes as soon as they had the tech prereqs met for culture and unit.

 

[strategyonly]

It was stemming directly from the normal barbarian spawn mechanism. A random valid unit pick for spawning. Spawns do not check to make sure the barbarians have a given prereq bonus (resource), only that they have the tech to GET that resource. Otherwise you'd never see Barbarian Axemen or Swordsmen. This bypass of prerequisites was enabling them to spawn heroes as soon as they had the tech prereqs met for culture and unit.

Got it, thx, darn good explanation, i appreciate that, as i am sure others do also.

 

[Sparth]

7201

1. removed useless XML files from units directories
2. moved Egyptian and Meso-American units to units_sparth.fpk

 

[Sparth]

7202

New set of skins for India Civilization