Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[strategyonly]

in my view disabling unit upgrades or making them prohibitively expensive would a) remove most incentive to actually gain high experience units since you need to have the production for new units every tech step anyways, so it would be much better to just use them as cannon fodder before they obsolete and build more units and b) cause an undue burden for players that do not want to expand mostly militarily since they need to still focus on military production to keep somewhat safe - in essence in my view making the game less fun.

My point exactly, thx.

 

[climat]

in my view disabling unit upgrades or making them prohibitively expensive would a) remove most incentive to actually gain high experience units since you need to have the production for new units every tech step anyways, so it would be much better to just use them as cannon fodder before they obsolete and build more units and b) cause an undue burden for players that do not want to expand mostly militarily since they need to still focus on military production to keep somewhat safe - in essence in my view making the game less fun.

I agree.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

in my view disabling unit upgrades or making them prohibitively expensive would a) remove most incentive to actually gain high experience units since you need to have the production for new units every tech step anyways, so it would be much better to just use them as cannon fodder before they obsolete and build more units and b) cause an undue burden for players that do not want to expand mostly militarily since they need to still focus on military production to keep somewhat safe - in essence in my view making the game less fun.

I agree also.

 

[ClassicFrog]

Perhaps make it as option then

 

[Thunderbrd]

Might make for an interesting option... would certainly be 'another way to play'.

Consider, where ships are concerned, that the crew, not the ship, is receiving an upgrade. The crew earned the exp and the ship operates better as a result of a better crew, regardless of what kind of ship they are given to operate.

Then again, there is a logic flaw in the concept for the sake of the game and always has been. The lifespan of the warriors that experienced a battle would not even cover the extent of a few rounds in the ancient era, therefore if we were trying to be realistic with experience, troops would be green and unpromoted after whatever time interval would represent about 20 yrs. If we wish to look at this more realistically, we would undermine the whole basis of the accrual of experience to begin with.

On that note, I had at one point removed the reduction of exp to a set amount when a unit is upgraded but have noticed that someone has retracted that adjustment... I'm curious if we all agree that troops should be dropped back down to a certain amount of xp when being upgraded? I personally find that annoying but then, that's why I had changed it to have no xp loss on upgrading. Not sure if we ever discussed that before. What's everyone's take on that situation?

 

[Questdog]

Then again, there is a logic flaw in the concept for the sake of the game and always has been. The lifespan of the warriors that experienced a battle would not even cover the extent of a few rounds in the ancient era, therefore if we were trying to be realistic with experience, troops would be green and unpromoted after whatever time interval would represent about 20 yrs. If we wish to look at this more realistically, we would undermine the whole basis of the accrual of experience to begin with.

Actually the lifespan of a warrior in a unit would be measured in weeks, not years during wartime.

I look at the promotions as if the unit has earned prestige during battle and earned the right to the best equipment and higher grade replacements which would remain in place regardless of the actual soldiers who remain in the unit. That is one reason why I do not like units receiving exp. outside of battle.

As it stands now, older units are already having their experience eroded by having new units begin life with more and more exp. The first units began life with 0 and earned all of the 200 they have, but they are not 200 points better than green units anymore, since new units begin with piles of points. I see no reason to punish them further by erasing points that they have earned.

 

[rightfuture]

1. I would recommend considering Giant Sloths for a popular animal that goes extinct that was around recently. If a 3d model could be found/made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_sloth
They disappeared relatively recently, are pretty interesting animals, and could possibly be still around; there apparently have been lots of possible sighting throughout South America.
http://discovermagazine.com/1999/sep/featbeasts
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-07-0...t-amazon-river
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/08/sc...ted=all&src=pm

2. I would also consider looking through lists of cryptozoolgical animals, or animals with possible sightings. I think they would be an interesting addition to alternate history gameplay as an option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology
http://www.cryptozoology.com/
http://www.cryptomundo.com/sitemap/
at the very least you could put the more 'iffy' or less plausible ones in a alternate timeline, or perhaps a 'mythological' era to toggle for those who want to play with them. You already have sea serpents and the kraken, which would be nice to have in a toggleable era/alternate timeline for those who want them. It would be fun to see 'nessie' the lochness monster in such a context.

3. I would also add Homo floresiensis or the "hobbit man" to the neanderthals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ory-human-race
and also
the Denisovians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...974903,00.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...99s-still-out/
That were just as instrumental to early man as the neanderthals.
They are now proven to have been around less then 10,000 bc.

What do people think of my 3 points?

 

[little_cyclone]

in my view disabling unit upgrades or making them prohibitively expensive would a) remove most incentive to actually gain high experience units since you need to have the production for new units every tech step anyways, so it would be much better to just use them as cannon fodder before they obsolete and build more units and b) cause an undue burden for players that do not want to expand mostly militarily since they need to still focus on military production to keep somewhat safe - in essence in my view making the game less fun.

Seconded. Game-wise it just doesn't sound like a good idea. Gotta balance game play with realism, and this might be going a little bit too far to the right I like your thinking tho ClassicFrog

 

[Koshling]

Actually the lifespan of a warrior in a unit would be measured in weeks, not years during wartime.

I look at the promotions as if the unit has earned prestige during battle and earned the right to the best equipment and higher grade replacements which would remain in place regardless of the actual soldiers who remain in the unit. That is one reason why I do not like units receiving exp. outside of battle.

As it stands now, older units are already having their experience eroded by having new units begin life with more and more exp. The first units began life with 0 and earned all of the 200 they have, but they are not 200 points better than green units anymore, since new units begin with piles of points. I see no reason to punish them further by erasing points that they have earned.

Units re not individuals. It's moer like '4th airbourne' or something - it's more an institution than a person so its lifetime is much longer. At least that's my rationalization

 

[Questdog]

Units re not individuals. It's moer like '4th airbourne' or something - it's more an institution than a person so its lifetime is much longer. At least that's my rationalization

I thought that was what I was saying.....

 

[ClassicFrog]

I was thinking about units and ships upgrades and ive got one idea that might be interesting to consider.
Instead of disabling unit and ship upgrades i thought that upgrades could be built separately from units and then attached to a unit or ship at which point the unit or ship would become something else.
So, for example (not actual values) you would have an experienced clubman and youve just discovered a new tech allowing you to build axeman. Training axeman would require 50 hammers and youd have a new unit. But you want only to upgrade your clubman, so you build an axeman-upgrade special unit that costs only 30 hammers. You still need to forge weapons, ship them to the unit and teach your clubman how to use new weapons. But you dont need to recruit new warriors or waste time to train them from scratch. Now, with that axeman-upgrade you could move it to where your clubman is and order axeman-upgrade to join the unit (just like noble or commander). At this point the unit would become axeman and keep all its promotions.
This process represents the need to actually spend some "industry effort" to build new weapons/equipment (or purchase it like any other thing in a build queue if your civics and treasury allow it).
The good thing about this idea is that it would work well with ships while being very close to realism. You dont simply teach sailors how to sail in a way so their galley becomes a battlecruiser. You need to build a ship for them. An enterprise like that takes a lot of effort. New capital ship may take as long as 2 - 3 years to build depending on the hull size. So of course one would need to sacrifice some hammers to build "an empty shell" ship-upgrade and then merge it with some outdated veteran vessel to represent crew transfer.
And another thing adding some flavour to the game ... if said upgrade-units could be captured then enemy could use them to refit its troops instead. A defeated unit might have a small chance to spawn its upgrade-unit counterpart after being destroyed to show that even if troops are killed there is some gear that might be salvaged. Being the victorious side on the battlefield and protecting own "salvaged stuff" or capturing enemies "salvaged stuff" would become important part of the strategy just as it was in real combat.

Thats the closest to the "real thing" i could come up with that would fit neatly within the current combat and experience system.

What do you think about it? Would it work and would it be possible to implement?

 

[Thunderbrd]

So your issue is that upgrading should cost production as opposed to gold and I've always thought that might be true, for I will often build cheaper units like mad just before I'm cuttoff from the ability to build them and then just use massive gold reserves to upgrade them.

I did bring up an idea similar to that where weaponry and equipment is all that defines troops beyond their basic promotions and training set. It seems to be received as a 'maybe' idea down the line.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I don' know, then what about using gold to "rush" for buildings or units? I think of upgrading units like "rushing" them. I do NOT think upgrading should use hammer instead of gold. We have so much extra gold at the moment. Things like upgrading units is key to keeping down ones gold.

 

[ori]

further it also strongly encourages builder type players to abandon their type of play (though not quite as much as outright removal of upgrading) by requiring a focus on unit production

 

[Praetyre]

I'm not entirely certain to whom I should direct this, given it deals with something outside of the core mod itself, so...

Is there any way to get autoturn to make decisions (perhaps by default choose whatever the advisors recommend) regarding Revolutions? I'm currently testing a scenario of mine, and it's getting very annoying to have to check in to make the odd bribe because the AI is expanding beyond it's means.

 

[dguichar]

1. Normally gathering awards all who get it a free gatherer. The first to get it gets an extra gatherer.

I suspect that the problem is in the python that gives the free gatherer to everyone who gets the tech not the first to get. As you say the archery one works and that is "a free to first to discover".

2. It is not the tech Cave Dwelling that gives the golden age but the national wonder Cave Dwelling.

3. I have never seen anyone get a golden age from writing, but then I don't play with minor civs on.

4. Designers choice, it was just felt that some wonders don't belong in the same place as others. This goes all the way back to RoM. I don't think it can be done with the current XML.

1. The problem is that gathering is a starting tech... so there´s no way i can research it to get the free gatherer. Sorry for my previous explanation, i guess it was very bad.
2. During advanced start up, i indeed bought cave dwelling national wonder (of course also the tech required to get the wonder) but i got no golden age from that.
3. All minor civs DO get a golden age upon discovering writing, except human player. That's what i don't understand.
4. Understood, i just hope in the future true unlimited wonders option can be implemented (both number an location) for check/uncheck as needed.

 

[ClassicFrog]

I don' know, then what about using gold to "rush" for buildings or units? I think of upgrading units like "rushing" them. I do NOT think upgrading should use hammer instead of gold. We have so much extra gold at the moment. Things like upgrading units is key to keeping down ones gold.

Like i said, you could rush the unit-upgrade build just as any other thing you're building. But the price would be related to the "hammer-price". I think upgrade prices are very very low. In my games i can barely feel the expense of upgrading, its more like stopping by mcdonalds and buying a milkshake than going through modernising my army.

If you want to find some use for gold then allow to rush build stuff regardless of any adopted civic BUT with some modifiers. For example the most basic civics might have +500% rush with gold penalty meaning you would have to pay 6 times as much if you want to build something. If you can afford it then fine, if not, research and adapt more efficient civics that give less penalty or remove it whatsoever.

 

[ori]

But why make things more complicated, require more micromanagement and punish those not wanting to go the military production route in the first place?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'll be doing a lot to hopefully balance out gold 'need vs supply' soon, which should really make it NOT feel like a trip through McDonalds to upgrade the military when I'm done.

 

[ClassicFrog]

But why make things more complicated, require more micromanagement and punish those not wanting to go the military production route in the first place?

With all extra techs, units, buildings, religions etc this mod by default makes everything more complicated and micromanaging-ish.

I dont buy the argument about punishing "builder" types of players. Civilization is a mix of both building and military and if were trying to speak in terms of realism both are necessary and none is overrated.

But to keep the game fun for everyone perhaps a solution would be amending difficulty levels giving an option to specify how much help should ai receive with economy, science, military etc, so builder players could challenge themselves against ai with high economy and scince bonus but none military help while warmongers would chose average ai with a great military boost.