C2C - UEM - Ultimate-Earth-Map 100% MOD and SVN update compatible by Pit2015

[Toffer90]

In CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml...

Set <iGoldModifier> to be the same in all gamespeeds.
Use the value found for it in GAMESPEED_NORMAL.

 

[Pit2015]

Ok tx, that worked, and where to change the value "Distance to capital" modifier?

Ok i changed:

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>10</iDefineIntVal><!-- was 50 -->
</Define>

Changed from 100 to 10 you should do that in mod also because it will drive the AI bankrupt.

Also i changed this as toffer suggested:

Set <iGoldModifier> to be the same in all gamespeeds.
Use the value found for it in GAMESPEED_NORMAL.

Eternity: Set to 120 from 220 back to NORMAL.

Works fine now, screeenshot...

Works only because the conquered city has 3 early wonders, otherwise i will get -5 gold, thats fair at this distance.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

@Pit2015,

Play in Noble, the AI is currently good as it can and will surpass you before the classical era if you are not careful with your expansion or lack thereof. Deity is impossible at the moment for this scenario.

Keep an eye on progressive, scientific or aggressive civilizations like Brazil, Babylon, Germany, China, etc. as those tend to be the early mid game (around classical to medieval) superpowers.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Ok this really sucks... +90% gamespeed and -49 gold for a city i conquered, so you cant keep up on deity... where can i change these two variables in the mod? I hardly managed to get that city and its not to far away and i have to pay 50 gold maintenance, sucks. I need to change this, where can it be changed? Screenshot...

I have to change the distance to capital variable and the +90% gamespeed variable. Where can that be changed? This makes early conquering unpossible... should be +10% for gamespeed and +4 gold for distance, something like this.

So you have to drop below 90% Research to keep a + Gold/turn, big deal. Really Pit you wanted a challenge but when you can't stay at 100% research you about it.

Now you have other Modders telling how to cheat too!

 

[Pit2015]

@Pit2015,

Play in Noble, the AI is currently good as it can and will surpass you before the classical era if you are not careful with your expansion or lack thereof. Deity is impossible at the moment for this scenario.

Keep an eye on progressive, scientific or aggressive civilizations like Brazil, Babylon, Germany, China, etc. as those tend to be the early mid game (around classical to medieval) superpowers.

I like to suffer and trying to survive, i can keep up good now, so its not unpossible, i am a experienced gamer... so works fine, still hard as hell with my changes and these changes are needed, it will ruin the AI when they conquer a city they will go bankrupt. -5 to -10 gold for a 10 to 20 plots away city is enouth and fine, but -90 gold is stupid and will never work.

 

[Pit2015]

So you have to drop below 90% Research to keep a + Gold/turn, big deal. Really Pit you wanted a challenge but when you can't stay at 100% research you about it.

Now you have other Modders telling how to cheat too!

No Swamp Fox. Still hard as hell with these changes, its early in the game if i reduce tech to 0% then i will save 4 gold... so -90 gold is just killing the game and AI. Still let me pay -86 gold, also more citys will cost more, still hard to get enouth gold. If the AI conqueres one city then they will go bankrupt. Works fine with my changes and still more then hard enouth, play the scenario with my changes on deity and eternity, then you see you will not survive, try playing USA. You need to be really good to keep up... and i will try to conquer one more city now and it is far away, so i dont think i can pay for it or at least it will cost me so mutch it will hit my production. So no cheating, it still hard as hell and will not run the AI bankrupt, you still have alot less gold with my changes. With your settings the game will not work, for the player and for the AI. I can only pay the conquered city because i am lucky they build 3 wonders and get some extra gold, otherwise i get -3 to -10 gold and i have to get alot on animals to get the gold, so turning the tech/research to 0% saves only 4 gold man, you understand? 4 gold from 90 is saved, you cant get 90 gold, never in the first 400 turns never. You have to remember that in eternity you need longer to build buildings, so it takes you longer to generate more gold. So my changes are badly needed to make this game work on deity + eternity. So on deity+eternity it should not be +90% for game speed it should be -90% because you need more time to get more gold. My changes work fine with deity + eternity and still more then hard the game, current settings dont work at all.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Works fine now, screeenshot...

-1 gold on 100% Research slider. Yeah works "good" for those that can't keep up.

Pit I have several Deity and Nightmare Deity players playing and not a single one of them says these settings are too hard for them or the AI. But then again they don't expect to run the Research Slider at 100% either.

Not going to change the Main Mod because of a scenario on this issue. The Scenario should fit the Mod, not the Mod fit the Scenario. That is backwards.

 

[Pit2015]

Scenario works fine with the mod, but your eternity gamespeed settings dont.

You dont understand it Joseph, slider to 0% research = saving 4 gold on -90 gold = -86 gold per turn, your setting for eternity, cant work. Can be changed for the scenario manualy as i told you, will not work your way, also will not work on other eternity games. May work on other gamespeeds because no +90% and on little maps no distance to capital, you will get reports and change it later as you allways do. I change that now for my deity + eternity game, works fine now. I cant change the settings in the mod for eternity gamespeed +90% cost for eternity is just silly... you need +100% more time to build up gold income, something wrong in your calculation to make then +90% more cost for slower game speed, will never work. So scenario fits the mod, but the mod settings for eternity will never work. +100% more time needed to build up more gold income and you put another +90% for the gamespeed to citymaintainance cost, should be -90% because you need more time to build stuff and create income or the game aand AI wil not still work. So it is, also when you dont want to see it. AI will go bankrupt when they conquer a city for sure, so mod problem.

Deity is no problem, your settings for eternity gamespeed are the problem... and city distance from capital cost is a problem because it will work only on small children maps. Paying 50 gold city maintenance for a city that is 10-20 plots away is silly. And then +90% city maintenance cost for eternity on a gamespeed where you will have mutch less gold and need mutch more time to generate more income is silly also. 50 gold + 90% = 95 gold maintenance on a game where you can earn a maximum of about 10 gold in 300 to 400 turns is very very silly.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Not going to change the Main Mod because of a scenario on this issue. The Scenario should fit the Mod, not the Mod fit the Scenario. That is backwards.

I get this sentiment, but then again, all a scenario is is a repeatable game case for the mod. I wouldn't completely discount this feedback. It might be rather accurate in bringing up real symptoms of issues, however it may not carry the best diagnosis and prescription. His approach may work to fix things but may not be taking into account everything we should be considering, such as the importance of leaving room for distance to capital upkeep to be modified in a meaningful manner when adjusted by factors like traits and civics.

This is where I trust you'll be looking closer. I think he's making a good point about the way the AI may be too economically hampered and can be made to go into strike a little too easily, particularly if on deity where they get a second city right out the gate.

Just sayin', I'd look into what he's saying but I wouldn't automatically just leap to agree with the solutions he's suggesting.

 

[Pit2015]

Mod should support every map size and every gamespeed for all scenarios, so you should do two things:

First, make the (In GlobalDefines.xml)

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>10</iDefineIntVal><!-- was 50 -->
</Define>

map size based, its currently on 100 was 50 i set it to 10, so if you can make that for every map size like gigantic = 10 and Huge = 20 and Large = 30 and so on than all scenario map sizes will work with the mod.

Second, make the (In CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml)

Set <iGoldModifier> to be better for every gamespeed.

For Eternity: to 120 is currently 220. Maybe go there for 160 for normal and -20 for every gamespeed level increase, every gamespeed level increase meens slower building and less gold for the gamer.

Eternity = 120
Snail = 140
Faster gamespeeds + 20 (Because on faster gamespeed you get more gold faster)

So the mod will work with every scenario and every map size and the AI will not go bankrupt by building or conquering citys.

 

[Thunderbrd]

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>10</iDefineIntVal><!-- was 50 -->
</Define>

I definitely disagree with this. This is taking all the edge off of the factor that is intended to keep a civ from growing too quickly. It's putting way too much of the easing up on the gold crunch on one factor in the game and making traits and civics that reduce Distance City Maintenance much less valuable to obtain.

There's a better way than to cut 90% off this. Not sure what without further evaluation, but while I can see reducing the impact, doing so by 90% is just too extreme when it's working well in most games as is.

I do think there's a possibility that the gamespeed gold adjustments might be a little too strong under the assumption that gold is easier to come by on longer speeds. If it's not, then such a severe setup just goes to make gold all the more challenging on those longer speeds than on less. It all depends on the rest of the balance factors.

 

[Pit2015]

Without the 90% i still paying 50 gold maintenance for a city 10 to 20 plots away... i cant and AI cant... that meens you can only own a city 2 plots away from you... then the +90% have to be done in an -90%, ok one sec i provide my save you can load it an see it with your normal mod settings...

Load this savegame and look your self, recalculate to your normal mod settings...

Ok Mohawk - Washington distance is only 13 plots and i pay 50 gold maintenance, sucks. AI will never go far out they will bild ollways close... so you can change the +90% for eternity to -90% but if thats enouth... may work.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Without the 90% i still paying 50 gold maintenance for a city 10 to 20 plots away

That's a LOT of plots away... one should be settling closer together than that. I play a very expanded settling range and it's not that far between cities.

I'm not trying to say it shouldn't be reduced, just not THAT far. Other factors can be manipulated as well.

I can't load a game right now either.

 

[Pit2015]

Citys are 13 plots away from each other, i tested now, its not very mutch on gigantic map size... -5 gold is ok for a conquered city or a newly builded city, many buildings will add more cost. I try to set the value to -90% now not +90% for eternity gamespeed, you need mutch more time to get more gold, has to be remembered, if that works there is no need to change MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE, i try now...

Remember that is the point why it be may good to make the MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE mapsize based because othere civs are mor far away from each other than on smaller maps... AI will go and conquere a city 15 plots away on gigantic maps, then they go bankrupt. Buy maybe will work with -90% on gamespeed modifier, and these are already gamespeed based, i test it now...

May work but the map size problem can only be fixed by making the MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE based on the mapsize i think, because on a gigantic map the civs are more far away from each other then on small maps... if the AI conqueres someone they go bankrupt. If the player conqueres a city he cant hold it.

No will not work to only change the IGoldModifier in gamespeedinfo.xml for eternity gamespeed because its affecting the closer citys also with -90% so you need to fing anouther way to make this work on different map sizes and i think best is to as i suggested, make the gamespeed -90% for eternity same as on normal gamespeed, works fine and also make MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE to 10 is currently on 100, best if you do it there for every map size different...

Like gigantic = 10 and Huge = 20 and Large = 30 (Was 50 original, and is now 100 in mod) must be map size based because on larger maps civs start mor far away from each other and player and AI may go there and conquer, then AI will go bankrupt, also AI will still not build citys far out because they build allways close to there civ as long as they have room left.

I go with my changes for now, maybe you find a good solution.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

I know that by playing on noble I'm not having such a hard time like you @Pit2015, but the current MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE is quite fair for this difficulty setting.

For example, in my current game I'm in late classical and I have 20 cities with Republic, City States, Meritocracy, Legislature, etc. To have a surplus of gold I need to dedicate at the very least least 5 for wealth or else I'll have to lower the beakers' slider (+4100 research at 100%).

By the way, the cities 13 plots away are conquered cities or settled? Because the most efficient range is around 8 plots maximum.

 

[Toffer90]

Just stating what I would initially do to set a baseline to be further worked from.
However, I have no intention to do this. This is Joe's area of responsibility.

The <iGoldModifier> should imo be set to 100 for all gamespeeds.
It doesn't make sense that you have more expenses per turn when you don't have more income per turn on longer gamespeeds.

In WorldInfo:
Currently iDistanceMaintenancePercent range from 50 (duel) to 175 (gigantic) and iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent range from 50 (duel) to 10 (gigantic)
</iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent> should be 100 for all map sizes.
<iDistanceMaintenancePercent> is perhaps good in the range: 200-50 (duel-gigantic)
iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent should not vary by map size as it would upset the balance too much in prehistoric games when you only have 1-3 cities (usually placed close together).
Distance maintenance is 0 when you only have 1 city and the effect of it is only felt properly after prehistoric, so I feel it's okay to vary it by map size.

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE is probably fine as it is.

 

[Pit2015]

I know that by playing on noble I'm not having such a hard time like you @Pit2015, but the current MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE is quite fair for this difficulty setting.

For example, in my current game I'm in late classical and I have 20 cities with Republic, City States, Meritocracy, Legislature, etc. To have a surplus of gold I need to dedicate at the very least least 5 for wealth or else I'll have to lower the beakers' slider (+4100 research at 100%).

By the way, the cities 13 plots away are conquered cities or settled? Because the most efficient range is around 8 plots maximum.

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE is not difficulty lvl based, is same on every difficulty lvl i think. 13 plots is on gigantic not mutch, before it worked with the mod then there was some changes now it cost me 96 gold maintenance for one conquered city 13 plots away from my capital centrum. 13 plots conquered enemy city one city and they are close on gigantic map...

Yep may work Toffer... same <iGoldModifier> for all gamespeeds is better. -90% for eternity gamespeed has to be removed, wrong direction because on eternity all needs longer and so you need longer to get more gold.

"It doesn't make sense that you have more expenses per turn when you don't have more income per turn on longer gamespeeds." Exactly.

 

[Thunderbrd]

It doesn't make sense that you have more expenses per turn when you don't have more income per turn on longer gamespeeds.

It does when you have an imbalance of gold per turn. If the balance goes either way then you'd want to make things either easier or harder on this factor depending on that balance.
The problem is... where IS that balance exactly? That is very hard to define.

 

[Toffer90]

It does when you have an imbalance of gold per turn. If the balance goes either way then you'd want to make things either easier or harder on this factor depending on that balance.
The problem is... where IS that balance exactly? That is very hard to define.

Scenario: 2 identical maps are created and set up to start in ancient era with 5 cities and 100 gold in treasury for the one and only playable civ.
If one starts the scenario with a fast gamespeed ( iGoldmodifier = 100 ), let's say that you then have 100 gold expenses due to unit and city maintenance, and 101 gold income per turn (0% research gives +1 gold per turn).
If one starts the scenario with a slow gamespeed ( iGoldmodifier = 200 ), you will then have 200 gold expenses per turn due to unit and city maintenance, and 101 gold income per turn (0% research gives -99 gold per turn)
The slow gamespeed game will stagnate a lot going forward so that it perhaps uses 1600 turns to reach the classical era while the fast gamespeed game uses 100 turns to reach the classical era.
The slow gamespeed game should Ideally use 8 times longer to reach the classical era since techs, buildings and units cost eight times more, but it ended up using 16 times more turns.
The fast gamespeed game will be able to afford perhaps 12 cites when it reaches the classical era while the eternity gamespeed will only be able to affor 6 to 8 cites when it reaches the classical era.

Another scenario: lets say that there is a max amount of cities you can have on a map before it becomes impossible to earn more gold per turn than the city maintenance expenses you have (assuming no unit cost here).
If the limit is 100 cities on a fast gamespeed that limit would surely be lower (averaged to 50 cities, depends a lot on the distance to capitol factor) on the slower gamespeed where the expenses are doubled while the theoretical max income from the cities are the same.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Scenario works fine with the mod, but your eternity gamespeed settings don

Wrong, they do work and they were tested (several Deity games by me alone) and I have several Deity players like Noriad2 (off the top of my head) that have No problem with Deity or even Nightmare Deity on Eternity GS or other GS.

You fiddled with the Global Distance to Palace modifier that did not need a change. Yet you over look the starting Num Cities and Dist Modifiers in your starting Civics. And the 2nd and sometimes 3rd tier Civics in various categories. There are many more places that affect gold. Toffer complains about Normal only having 120% Maint modifier when it's actually 130% But with 18% Inflation. While Eternity only has a 9% Inflation rate and a 190% maint. mod. All part of the total baalncing act being done here.

If I were to make Eternity or All GS have the same Maint Modifier thru the iGoldModifier at 130%, it won't be long before I start getting posts from players wanting to know why there is Sooo Much Gold! It's Not just a simple changing of one Modifier. The Balance comes from multiple modifiers in multiple files. Don't know how many times I need to say this for it to sink in to ppl's heads.

Another thing, Gigantic Map is not supported either. StrategyOnly made that decision almost 2 years ago.But Yes we still have it available as a Map size. Play at your own risk.

Without the 90% i still paying 50 gold maintenance for a city 10 to 20 plots away... i cant and AI cant... that meens you can only own a city 2 plots away from you..

Your math is wrong again And if you are using Revolution Your Distance to Palace Modifiers are Also affected as well as how far away you can go from your empire's border. That conquered city 20 plots away needs to be made a Colony to cut your Dist maint costs.

@pit,
As for you scenario, you change it how ever you see fit. But as for the Main Mod I'll take care of that.

Scenario: 2 identical maps are created and set up to start in ancient era with 5 cities and 100 gold in treasury for the one and only playable civ.
If one starts the scenario with a fast gamespeed ( iGoldmodifier = 100 ), let's say that you then have 100 gold expenses due to unit and city maintenance, and 101 gold income per turn (0% research gives +1 gold per turn).
If one starts the scenario with a slow gamespeed ( iGoldmodifier = 200 ), you will then have 200 gold expenses per turn due to unit and city maintenance, and 101 gold income per turn (0% research gives -99 gold per turn)
The slow gamespeed game will stagnate a lot going forward so that it perhaps uses 1600 turns to reach the classical era while the fast gamespeed game uses 100 turns to reach the classical era.
The slow gamespeed game should Ideally use 8 times longer to reach the classical era since techs, buildings and units cost eight times more, but it ended up using 16 times more turns.
The fast gamespeed game will be able to afford perhaps 12 cites when it reaches the classical era while the eternity gamespeed will only be able to affor 6 to 8 cites when it reaches the classical era.

Another scenario: lets say that there is a max amount of cities you can have on a map before it becomes impossible to earn more gold per turn than the city maintenance expenses you have (assuming no unit cost here).
If the limit is 100 cities on a fast gamespeed that limit would surely be lower (averaged to 50 cities, depends a lot on the distance to capitol factor) on the slower gamespeed where the expenses are doubled while the theoretical max income from the cities are the same.

Again another oversimplified example but you just keep pounding don't you.

Finally, This is a tired subject that I'm getting a bit fed up getting beat up over. I have a working system that has now been "adjusted" several times by Toffer and T-brd. To which I've had to readjust to. But because those that don't see a formula posted by me, then they are all too willing to pick at it.