Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
9114
- removed Great Detective until we can find why it is causing an error
- removed Great Detective until we can find why it is causing an error
C2C SVN Changelog
- Thread starter Dancing Hoskuld
- Start date
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
9115
-- Set Limits on Rams, Upped Limits on Arsonist, adjust some early unit str, and adjust several upgrade paths accordingly.
-- Set Limits on Rams, Upped Limits on Arsonist, adjust some early unit str, and adjust several upgrade paths accordingly.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
@Toffer,
Not me. Look at the Boss (SO) for those changes! See some of his last posts here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14164345&postcount=10297
Last thing I did in Traits was to change the crime values on traits that had them. I changed nothing else. And that was a couple of months ago too.
And what's up with this "also go bananas on"? You sayin' I went bonkers on the str changes? These have needed attention for some time now. And T-brd will change them all anyway.
EDIT: One thing I have not finished is some of the Upgrades for these early units. Some are down right sideways or actually downgrades and need changed or removed. Why would you take an early spearman at str 3 and "upgrade" to an Atlatl which is also str 3? Or a spiked club at str 3 to the old stone axe that was also str3. At least the Spiked to Stone axe make sense now str 3 to str 4.
I'm gonna go bananas a bit more on unit strs and upgrades before T-brd comes back in a wipes everything out with his Big unit overhaul plans.
JosEPh
I'm not promising to wipe everything out. I'm promising to review. I will obviously take under advisement the adjustments you've made. However, while I'm not the author of lateral promotions, its a little dissapointing you don't see the value to them. They are NOT the suggested promotion path but a way for units to sidestep to a different unit path. That said, I've been wondering if it's harmful to the AI to a degree.
And Spiked Club to Stone Axe always made sense as, while yes, they are the same in strength, the difference is 25 or 50% modifier vs melee the stone axe gets that the Spiked Club does not. Strength is not the only measure of unit power.
Anyhow, review processes tend to look at the value of the structure as it stands and evaluates the full range of unit strengths and abilities and adjustments to bring them into a system of checks and balances from there. So your adjustments will be taken as strong suggestions as I won't even have the originals to compare to unless I go out of the way to look up what the stats WERE.
I WILL be seeking to re-introduce some of the balance factors in units presented in Vanilla that seemed to be lost on those creating the units for C2C. Example: Spears generally get -25% starting strength but +100% vs Mounted. Swords generally get +25% starting strength and a little bonus against cities which makes them weaker against axes when they clash but at the same time a point or two higher in base strength than other contemporary units. Axes get +/- 0% starting strength but get +25% against Melee making them more than capable of taking down swords and makes them much more powerful against spears. Mounted generally gets +50% strength but penalties against city attacks so they are capable of overpowering swords and axes but are still weaker in the end result of evaluation against spears.
Currently we've been gravitating towards all of the above getting +/- 0% base strength adjustment and flat 50% modifiers against the units that they counter. It's just not as elegant unfortunately.
You seem to be adjusting baselines of strength progressions among contemporary units and I think it will be valuable to take into account your approach when re-evaluating the full system of unit interactions. What bothers me a little is that it may then cause RE-evaluation of already evaluated units that were given strengths according to assumed bases you may have changed... but if that's the case it won't be hard to go back and make adjustments to those too since now that they are fully charted out it won't be as difficult to adjust their balances.
And just so you are fully aware... I had announced the intention to make this evaluation the heart of the next review months before you decided to start trying to jump in and make adjustments of your own here so it's not like I'm trying to come back over everything you do... it's much more like you're jumping in and tweaking things I've put on the queue to review before I can get to it. Not that that's a bad thing though since it will help to get your thoughts included in that pending review.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
9116
- Quick isolated file commit on UnitSchema and SpawnInfos to open up the ability of another team member to help with assigning PlayerType tags to each spawn info, which will be necessary to have in place for spawns to work when the dll I'm still working on is complete.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
Where is the discussion of that?
If you increase the limit of Arsonists, you should make them weaker, too.
Rams were fine to take a city, IF you promoted them correctly. But that was something you wouldn't even try. A well defended capital wasn't something that should be easily conquered, I hope that's still the case.
It appears to me that you don't know how to do proper warfare in the very early game (using PROMOTED rams, Archer Bombardment, destabilizing a civ with criminals and spies and being overall well prepared) and thus blaming the game for being imbalanced.
That's not the right way to go. Chaning major core things without discussion is NEVER the right way to go, as you have pointed out yourself many times.
Also, since you like to use the "it hurts the AI!" uber-argument: Try playing on a higher difficulty and then tell me again how easily you can defend your cities
Maybe, if possible, we could have a flat modifier on defense based on difficulty. Like a -50% (so if they had 120% it goes to 70%) modifier for settler and + 50% for deity. And vice versa for the player, thought that wouldn't be really necessary, since the AI is pretty harsh in taking cities from you
Nothing against these changes in general (except maybe increasing Arsonists limit without reducing their strength), but these need to be discussed beforehand. It's about mutal respect; imaging looking in the SVN and found out someone increased maintenance because he felt that there is too much gold in game for his way of playing...
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
9117
- Automobiles now required for Parking Garage etc.
- Televisions now required for TV Station
- Brackenspore's Cosmonaut Training Center added
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
9118
- Quickfix to an error in spawn infos.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Where is the discussion of that?
If you increase the limit of Arsonists, you should make them weaker, too.
Rams were fine to take a city, IF you promoted them correctly. But that was something you wouldn't even try. A well defended capital wasn't something that should be easily conquered, I hope that's still the case.
It appears to me that you don't know how to do proper warfare in the very early game (using PROMOTED rams, Archer Bombardment, destabilizing a civ with criminals and spies and being overall well prepared) and thus blaming the game for being imbalanced.
That's not the right way to go. Chaning major core things without discussion is NEVER the right way to go, as you have pointed out yourself many times.
Also, since you like to use the "it hurts the AI!" uber-argument: Try playing on a higher difficulty and then tell me again how easily you can defend your cities
Maybe, if possible, we could have a flat modifier on defense based on difficulty. Like a -50% (so if they had 120% it goes to 70%) modifier for settler and + 50% for deity. And vice versa for the player, thought that wouldn't be really necessary, since the AI is pretty harsh in taking cities from you
Nothing against these changes in general (except maybe increasing Arsonists limit without reducing their strength), but these need to be discussed beforehand. It's about mutal respect; imaging looking in the SVN and found out someone increased maintenance because he felt that there is too much gold in game for his way of playing...
Nice! We all have opinions, you just voiced yours. Thanks.
Arsonists went from a limit of 5 to 10 while there are other multiple units that have limits of 15. Their str didn't need changed and I did not change their bombard rate which, by the way, Is their most critical modifier and it's too low still.
Why don't you just Play with the changes and see how they pan out before you critique or criticize? The AI on Emperor is already attacking faster, better, and more organized than before with some of these Str and Limit changes I put in, without your approval, and this is Before Arsonists are even researched by anyone.
Moderator Action: Snip!
JosEPh
Moderator Action: Part of post deleted. There is no need to become personal with your comments.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
I haven't seen you playing for sure. But comments like "I don't promote my rams cuz it's not worth it" - "have you tried it?" - "no and I never will" or "rams are too weak and you can't conquer cities early game" gives me some good hints here 
As I said it is not that I critizise your changes, it's the way you've done it. So IS there a discussion? I'd be happy to read that. You go nuts if someone changes something YOU don't liked without even trying it out, but appearently you are allowed to do the excact same thing by yourself. That's the only thing I want you to think about.
As I said it is not that I critizise your changes, it's the way you've done it. So IS there a discussion? I'd be happy to read that. You go nuts if someone changes something YOU don't liked without even trying it out, but appearently you are allowed to do the excact same thing by yourself. That's the only thing I want you to think about.
9119
-Added 6 real great detectives (all still commented out).
-Merged NamesGreatPersons_CIV4GameText.xml into CIV4GameTextInfos_GreatPeople
They were mostly duplicates of each other.
-CIV4GameTextInfos_GreatPeople - Sorted alphabetically and removed most unused entries.
-Added 6 real great detectives (all still commented out).
-Merged NamesGreatPersons_CIV4GameText.xml into CIV4GameTextInfos_GreatPeople
They were mostly duplicates of each other.
-CIV4GameTextInfos_GreatPeople - Sorted alphabetically and removed most unused entries.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
9120
deleted the Great Det btns that didnt work (thx above Toffer)
also changed a few Civics (Military and Labor) just a little
deleted the Great Det btns that didnt work (thx above Toffer)
also changed a few Civics (Military and Labor) just a little
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
<moved>
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
The AI does need a boost to doing pillage which is actually on the list for this version - well part of addressing it anyhow.
And the AI has long had a problem letting the hammer fall on cities and I'm not entirely sure why but full review of the attack code will eventually figure it out. But yeah, known big issue.
Are slingers actually capable of ranged assualt? I didn't think they were, being throwing units rather than archery or beyond. Likewise I don't think Atl-Atls are capable of it either. Of course, yes, it's going to be more common for misses with early units. I suppose with the gradiating increase in ranged accuracy as units upgrade we could pinch that charted progression so that all ranged unit paths start higher with accuracy and don't get quite as high into the futuristic ones but improvements in targeting methods seem pretty tech based and have become a lot more evolved since throwing rocks and firing bows. It would seem there should be a pretty dramatic improvement in these as units improve with upgrades. And to give room for that, the chart does have to start a little on the low side. It's a % chance system so we only have 0-100 to work with here.
Still, in general, using throwing units 'correctly' would mean enhancing their withdrawal so they can survive getting in and out to weaken the enemy as much as they can before the heavy hitter melee units come in. Usually.
And the AI has long had a problem letting the hammer fall on cities and I'm not entirely sure why but full review of the attack code will eventually figure it out. But yeah, known big issue.
Are slingers actually capable of ranged assualt? I didn't think they were, being throwing units rather than archery or beyond. Likewise I don't think Atl-Atls are capable of it either. Of course, yes, it's going to be more common for misses with early units. I suppose with the gradiating increase in ranged accuracy as units upgrade we could pinch that charted progression so that all ranged unit paths start higher with accuracy and don't get quite as high into the futuristic ones but improvements in targeting methods seem pretty tech based and have become a lot more evolved since throwing rocks and firing bows. It would seem there should be a pretty dramatic improvement in these as units improve with upgrades. And to give room for that, the chart does have to start a little on the low side. It's a % chance system so we only have 0-100 to work with here.
Still, in general, using throwing units 'correctly' would mean enhancing their withdrawal so they can survive getting in and out to weaken the enemy as much as they can before the heavy hitter melee units come in. Usually.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
9121
- Updated isolated Units folder with the latest in progress on the Barbarian splitup project.
Faustmouse
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,524
9122
Updated more buildings (mostly related to Myths) to be only buildable on earth.
9123
More updates; for platyping's and the Alt Timeline Module.
Updated more buildings (mostly related to Myths) to be only buildable on earth.
9123
More updates; for platyping's and the Alt Timeline Module.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
9124
THIS COMMIT IS NOT SAVEGAME COMPATIBLE and there's another one coming that will break saves again. I'm only putting this on the SVN because it's completely stable and I want to lock that in while I can before going into other save breaking waters in the coding.
Pretty much that's that for the programming side of that project. A few little things may emerge as needing adjusted thanks to these changes and DH may want to do a search for 'TB Note' throughout the python files to see some messages left for him where more advanced work could be helpful but for the most part, this is pretty solid and just awaiting some promised xml work from Toffer and Harrier (you guys rock!) to cap things off.
I do still need to do a little more animal AI refinement as discussed with Toffer and I've got a data cleanup project I need to start on now but we're looking good for having the save game breakage period being over soon.
For those among us who work on animal spawns, again note that I found that animals were being generated still by the original barbarian spawn mechanism and that has now been eliminated. Between that and the fact that animals vs animals vs barbs conflicts now taking place (which doesn't seem to slow things as much as I might've feared though maybe more on larger maps) spawns will most likely need some recalibrating in the wake of these adjustments. Animals are purely stemming from spawn infos at this point. (I also saw some fun barb spawns that I think came from the spawn infos when I was testing so this seems to have cleared some murk in the spawn waters.)
- Splits Barbarians and Animals into Barbarians, Beasts and Creatures (so many aspects to this that it cannot be all listed succinctly. This includes work in dll, python, xml and fpk. The whole spectrum. New tags, new effects. All discussed in the save breakage thread.)
- Removes the bAnimal tag from unitinfos
- Debugs an issue with MapCategoryType tags
THIS COMMIT IS NOT SAVEGAME COMPATIBLE and there's another one coming that will break saves again. I'm only putting this on the SVN because it's completely stable and I want to lock that in while I can before going into other save breaking waters in the coding.
Pretty much that's that for the programming side of that project. A few little things may emerge as needing adjusted thanks to these changes and DH may want to do a search for 'TB Note' throughout the python files to see some messages left for him where more advanced work could be helpful but for the most part, this is pretty solid and just awaiting some promised xml work from Toffer and Harrier (you guys rock!) to cap things off.
I do still need to do a little more animal AI refinement as discussed with Toffer and I've got a data cleanup project I need to start on now but we're looking good for having the save game breakage period being over soon.
For those among us who work on animal spawns, again note that I found that animals were being generated still by the original barbarian spawn mechanism and that has now been eliminated. Between that and the fact that animals vs animals vs barbs conflicts now taking place (which doesn't seem to slow things as much as I might've feared though maybe more on larger maps) spawns will most likely need some recalibrating in the wake of these adjustments. Animals are purely stemming from spawn infos at this point. (I also saw some fun barb spawns that I think came from the spawn infos when I was testing so this seems to have cleared some murk in the spawn waters.)
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Confirmed SVN 9124 breaks All save games.
Your choice start New games with 9124 or Do Not Update to 9124.
Your choice start New games with 9124 or Do Not Update to 9124.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I've found a fairly major bug with the last update. I'm trying to fix it now but apparently what's happening is that after initializing the game, somewhere between saving and reloading the extra NPC slots are being 'killed off'. This is making it only possible to have animals in the game during the first session and actually also makes it so that games will crash when loaded the next time. I'm working on zeroing in on how this is happening.
EDIT: Apparently I'm back to arguing with the EXE. The EXE calls for each player to save its data and the assumption that it stops after the barbarian player (or after MAX_CIV_PLAYERS + 1 - I'm not sure yet) is hardcoded there. I'm going to have to get theoretical again to overcome this. Please be patient with me.
EDIT2: Ok... so I figured out a way to get it done on the first try. If the exe isn't going to call to write and read savegame data for those players I could do it from the main game data save routine! It works!!! Unfortunately it means breaking the savegames that exist yet again but that's still going to happen at least one more time from here. Whew... yet another problem I thought I wasn't going to be able to solve already resolved. It's mission impossible C2C style these days.
EDIT: Apparently I'm back to arguing with the EXE. The EXE calls for each player to save its data and the assumption that it stops after the barbarian player (or after MAX_CIV_PLAYERS + 1 - I'm not sure yet) is hardcoded there. I'm going to have to get theoretical again to overcome this. Please be patient with me.
EDIT2: Ok... so I figured out a way to get it done on the first try. If the exe isn't going to call to write and read savegame data for those players I could do it from the main game data save routine! It works!!! Unfortunately it means breaking the savegames that exist yet again but that's still going to happen at least one more time from here. Whew... yet another problem I thought I wasn't going to be able to solve already resolved. It's mission impossible C2C style these days.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
9125
BREAKS SAVEGAME COMPATIBILITY AGAIN
Also... recent bug report just stated we're still having some save/reload issues. I'll be looking into it as soon as I can.
EDIT: Ok, I have a fundamental concept of what the problem is at least but it'll be much later today when I can start looking to resolve it.
- New GroupSpawnUnitCombatTypes tag for unit infos.
- Adjusts Animal AI for Assassination and Targets.
- MapCategoryTypes for Projects and Goodies.
- Fixes read/write sequence for NPC players.
- Bars promotions with certain promo tags (such as iDefensiveOnlyChange) from being able to be assigned by Battlefield Promotions.
BREAKS SAVEGAME COMPATIBILITY AGAIN
Also... recent bug report just stated we're still having some save/reload issues. I'll be looking into it as soon as I can.
EDIT: Ok, I have a fundamental concept of what the problem is at least but it'll be much later today when I can start looking to resolve it.
Septimius
Warlord
Thanks for a great mod. I've been playing v. 36 for a while and ran into a consistent crash bug, so I thought I'd check out the SVN version and see if it could fix the crash or just start a new game with the 9k updates you've made.
Anyway, it's rather difficult to figure out what the installation instructions actually mean... So I'd suggest you upload a link to a stable beta version that works with .36 for those of us who don't want to jump straight into this modder's paradise, but just want to get playing. And maybe help out with comments on crashes, stability etc.
But more specifically -
"A: Getting started:" - really could do with more of a point by point installation instruction. Too much of it is "modder's jargon", so to speak. I.e. you speaking to people who know how Tortoise works. For the first time installer it's hard to know what you're talking about - e.g. "3) Checkout from the repository"
It's 3.4G (uncompressed transfer I'm afraid) - my transfer was somewhere below 800mb and compressed. So that's wrong...
B: Getting the current version into play:
2) Right click and drag the root folder of your working copy to this new folder - What's the root folder? The folder I made for all the stuff downloaded with Tortoise?
3) Select the 'export without versioned files' option - There's no such option with the current version of Tortoise. You get "export versioned", "export all" and "export changed". Which do I choose? Obviously I might have moved the wrong root folder, which isn't odd, since I've little idea what is meant by that... But I guess that it's the folder Tortoise downloaded everything to. DOS language... Sigh!
I followed this link A different explanation of this by dusckr87 here. and understood a bit more about the program, but it didn't help me with the above questions.
And I've obviously gone like twenty pages back in the latest history to see if anything useful came up, but it really looks like you need an update of your start page.
Later edit: Ok I tried doing the "all" option. The game loads fine, but it breaks my 0.36 save ("Save format is not compatible due to missing class SPECIALUNIT_NAVAL_MINE"). I'm using the 9123 revision.
I've been playing v. 36 for a while and ran into a consistent crash bug, so I thought I'd check out the SVN version and see if it could fix the crash or just start a new game with the 9k updates you've made.Anyway, it's rather difficult to figure out what the installation instructions actually mean... So I'd suggest you upload a link to a stable beta version that works with .36 for those of us who don't want to jump straight into this modder's paradise, but just want to get playing. And maybe help out with comments on crashes, stability etc.
But more specifically -
"A: Getting started:" - really could do with more of a point by point installation instruction. Too much of it is "modder's jargon", so to speak. I.e. you speaking to people who know how Tortoise works. For the first time installer it's hard to know what you're talking about - e.g. "3) Checkout from the repository"
It's 3.4G (uncompressed transfer I'm afraid) - my transfer was somewhere below 800mb and compressed. So that's wrong...
B: Getting the current version into play:
2) Right click and drag the root folder of your working copy to this new folder - What's the root folder? The folder I made for all the stuff downloaded with Tortoise?
3) Select the 'export without versioned files' option - There's no such option with the current version of Tortoise. You get "export versioned", "export all" and "export changed". Which do I choose? Obviously I might have moved the wrong root folder, which isn't odd, since I've little idea what is meant by that... But I guess that it's the folder Tortoise downloaded everything to. DOS language... Sigh!
I followed this link A different explanation of this by dusckr87 here. and understood a bit more about the program, but it didn't help me with the above questions.
And I've obviously gone like twenty pages back in the latest history to see if anything useful came up, but it really looks like you need an update of your start page.
Later edit: Ok I tried doing the "all" option. The game loads fine, but it breaks my 0.36 save ("Save format is not compatible due to missing class SPECIALUNIT_NAVAL_MINE"). I'm using the 9123 revision.
