Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Revolutions. If you're playing with the No Revolutions game, then it's actually neat to hear that it's possible to cause such city revolts in the manner in which it was meant to be possible. A confirmation of design that I've not received yet. Maybe when I experience it for myself, I'll feel the need to rebalance a bit but it also sounds like the AI is responding as it should to such threats where it can. It sounds like they also need to attack the root of the problem and not just the symptoms, getting some real culture growth into their borderlands to help counter the cultural attack.The AI actually taught me that policemen are excellent for quelling revolts, as they reduce revolt risk seriously. But f.ex. my mastodon of a neighbour Brazil, took a city in the middle of enemy culture (his warlike ways had turned the land to his side, so it wasn't too bad) and then placed FIFTY policemen in a city size 8... Maybe that was what was required, but it certainly seemed excessive
What's Rev?
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Deer, Giraffes, Zebras and Llamas are not "special". Zebras are identical to horses. Giraffes and Deer only have 2-3 weak units. Llamas are week versions of horses with the ability to go through mountains. Most were only included because there was graphics for them.
The original idea for Zebras and later for Llamas was that if you built either of these then you would loose all access to horses as well. Then more horse units were added.
If you are going to change things up then I would suggest that the extra horse units be created for Zebras and Llamas. They be made Group wonders and you loose access to horses if you build them.
Giraffe and Deer are more auxiliary style units. Perhaps they should be moved to a Culture or a National Wonder.
In my games I tend to go for and use Bison. I used to like Rhinos but lately I have not been building them.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
It's good to discuss this of course.
* In terms of real world examples of people domesticating them, I'm not sure if Zebras have been. Deer have been if you include Reindeer but only really by a few civs and at differing times. Giraffes? No idea if there's any historical examples there. Llamas, definitely and not restricted to one culture.
* In terms of added elite abilities:
Deer are very good at withdrawal (VERY good) and are able to ignore terrain movement costs. They are also more keenly camoflauged and are also a bit more alert than horses. I think this is reflected in the stats for Hide and Seek games. They also have cold weather terrain bonuses and forest fighting bonuses. As a result, as a special unit they are currently far superior to horse equivalent units.
Giraffes are fairly good at withdrawal, should have added range of sight, and a little melee combat bonus - Giraffes are actually incredibly dangerous if they wish to be. They also have a size up on horses I think. If Giraffes don't already have these benefits over the standard horses than they should to make them improved. Some camo on certain terrains like grasslands could also be good for Hide & Seek games.
Zebras are not identical to horses... they are much harder to train BUT, as a group of them, they have THE best withdrawal ratings in the game because the stripes confuse any pursuit. The super high withdrawal levels make them incredible at hit and run operations. The fact that they are a bit more nervous enhances their early withdrawal on Fight or Flight as well, making them even more powerful in this regard. Otherwise, yes, pretty much just improved horses.
Personally, to get Llamas a bit up to speed on strength, making them comparable there, would make them epic enough to hold ground in comparison to bears, bison, mammoths and cats because of their utility. However, I can see how those may be best not to be grouped in because they shouldn't be restricted to one culture, just the ones that can get access to Llamas. Thus, keeping them the primary early peak fighting and exploring units is enough to reward the limited resource access.
We certainly could use extra horse equivalent units for Zebras and Giraffes, both of which are super limited. Llamas, yeah could probably be fleshed out some more, particularly so that we have the versions that dismount and get terrain defense benefits, since they are generally units you'd use to guard your peaks just in case and not having them be able to get defense benefits from the tile makes them struggle for purpose a bit since any real army led over the peaks by a general would be too much for the Llamas to handle when attacking.
Bison are fast and a little stronger. Rhinos are awesome in Size Matters for being an excellent counter to splitting and in any game where your opponent uses cheap low cost units with a strength score just to keep you from taking a city by costing you attacks. I think they should be a little stronger maybe now with some strength scores around them having gone up a bit. Mammoths are just flat out awesome. Cats are deadly lethal.
And Group Wonders don't always have to be equal. Being last to make a selection you can really just have to deal with less valuable choices, and maybe that also has to do with the zone you started in. Someone also said about Kangaroo Riders being included which wasn't a bad idea if possible.
Dealing with the 3d art is out of my realm here is the problem with expanding... the xml and stats is not an issue but I'm nowhere near as effective as you are working with modules.
BackseatTyrant
Queer Anarcho-Transhumanist
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 345
Rmi
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
- Messages
- 271
Making the special trainers a group wonder is a great idea.
For streamlining it would be great if they all gave access to three units. An early one, a medieval one and a cavalry one.
They should all have their unique strength and weaknesses too. One can be better than the other but they should all have some merit.
Having them all be national units with a limit of 15 would be fine too i think.
Llamas.
Can move mountains offcourse and they could get hillsmen. They should be a bit weaker too. Pretty much as they are now.
Deer
They should have forestry and a good withdrawal chance as Tbrd said. Same strength as horses or perhaps a bit weaker.
Zebras
They should have the same base as a horse unit, but promotions that reflect their wild nature. I'd refrain from using withdrawal to set them apart from deer.
Bison
They offcourse need to be stronger than horses. They seem great now too.
Giraffe
The giraffe should have sentry offcourse =). Maybe higher base movement because of its long legs? Shouldn't be stronger than the horse
Bear
They seem to be in the right spot now too. Slow moving but even stronger.
Rhino
These should be significantly better than those before, with great strength and collateral damage. But i'd make them expensive and perhaps give them a national limit of 5.
Mammoth.
This should be the ultimate unit, superior strength, collateral damage and build in bonus against horses. But also slow, expensive and a limit of 5.
I'd stay away from giving these units any combat promotions right away to set them apart from most cultures. And not make them strictly better than horse units.
The cat trainer is the odd one out. I would not include it with the rest because we are not using them as steeds.
Let's make it a national wonder instead. Cats for everybody. They provide a unique advantage and can be extremely powerful i don't want to limit them to just one civ.
My 2cents. Is this remotely doable?
For streamlining it would be great if they all gave access to three units. An early one, a medieval one and a cavalry one.
They should all have their unique strength and weaknesses too. One can be better than the other but they should all have some merit.
Having them all be national units with a limit of 15 would be fine too i think.
Llamas.
Can move mountains offcourse and they could get hillsmen. They should be a bit weaker too. Pretty much as they are now.
Deer
They should have forestry and a good withdrawal chance as Tbrd said. Same strength as horses or perhaps a bit weaker.
Zebras
They should have the same base as a horse unit, but promotions that reflect their wild nature. I'd refrain from using withdrawal to set them apart from deer.
Bison
They offcourse need to be stronger than horses. They seem great now too.
Giraffe
The giraffe should have sentry offcourse =). Maybe higher base movement because of its long legs? Shouldn't be stronger than the horse
Bear
They seem to be in the right spot now too. Slow moving but even stronger.
Rhino
These should be significantly better than those before, with great strength and collateral damage. But i'd make them expensive and perhaps give them a national limit of 5.
Mammoth.
This should be the ultimate unit, superior strength, collateral damage and build in bonus against horses. But also slow, expensive and a limit of 5.
I'd stay away from giving these units any combat promotions right away to set them apart from most cultures. And not make them strictly better than horse units.
The cat trainer is the odd one out. I would not include it with the rest because we are not using them as steeds.
Let's make it a national wonder instead. Cats for everybody. They provide a unique advantage and can be extremely powerful i don't want to limit them to just one civ.
My 2cents. Is this remotely doable?
@Rmi These units need to be compared to all other historical mounts (horses, elephants and camels - Llamas are historical as well). And Mammoth have cold promotions, of course. If these units are limited it should be safe to make them better than horses, especially because getting horse units is a lot cheaper if you have access to horses (is it still possible to get the Horse Trainer simply by having any mount?).
Kangaroo Riders would be awesome, but I think stirrups might not be enough for them.
Kangaroo Riders would be awesome, but I think stirrups might not be enough for them.
armenia4ever
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2017
- Messages
- 24
I noticed that when I ran one of the recent SVN updates, my game age clock now reads 151734 AD and some old technologies had to be rediscovered again. Also, for some reason Town Watch can be built in the same city unlimited times. This happen with any of you guys? (My crime rate was completely fixed finally.)
Last edited:
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Your game dates will be off because this game of yours was started before we changed the Start date to 200,000BC. Previously (v37) it was 50,000BC.
For this game all you can do is go into BUG and turn the Game Date Off. Go by turns and % of turns finished.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
The National Wonder, Fertility Festival, was supposed to replace the need for the Fertility Dance, in all cities. It isn't. A bit of code is missing. Therefore I am going to do a slight change to these buildings and get it working again.
- The National Wonder will require 3 of the Fertility Dance buildings in your nation including one in the city that will build the wonder.
- The Effect building from the wonder will be the same as the Fertility Dance building with a slight bonus to population growth currently represented as a 5% storage after growth.
- The Fertility Dance building will replaced by the Effect building.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I like it. I've seen some similar things, like the safety national wonders, which are much like what you're talking about. Would you group those in as infrastructure wonders or would you consider them something different and why? Categorizing and using standard practices to achieve certain goals and more easily convey the purpose to the player is not a bad idea.The National Wonder, Fertility Festival, was supposed to replace the need for the Fertility Dance, in all cities. It isn't. A bit of code is missing. Therefore I am going to do a slight change to these buildings and get it working again.
Thus build the national wonder and all new cities will have the effect of the dance without needing any dance buildings. This style of NW is called an infrastructure wonder.
- The National Wonder will require 3 of the Fertility Dance buildings in your nation including one in the city that will build the wonder.
- The Effect building from the wonder will be the same as the Fertility Dance building with a slight bonus to population growth currently represented as a 5% storage after growth.
- The Fertility Dance building will replaced by the Effect building.
For that matter, what would we call wonders that, when built in the same city, trigger a free bonus building or wonder? I think that deserves a term. I suggest 'Set Wonders'.
Not all of these necessarily deserve splitting out into their own pedia categories but at least for the sake of discussion, the terms can be helpful to have established.
As for the Fertility Dance Effects, the bonus to growth... do we have a tag for 'needing % less food to grow'? I know it's a minor distinction but it's nicer to think of anything that would influence birth rate as influencing how much food is needed and anything that influences food storage as using the tag you referred to, %storage after growth. We should always be able to increase the base amount of food needed if it's getting too little or too high game-wide. I think the main thing is that both need to be used because if we get too much on either tag we have the chance of hitting a modifier amount that leads to infinite growth every round.
Just an opinion.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
The Strategic Grain Reserve is another.
However we have a lot which are Pseudo National Wonders. They are National Wonders but don't count towards the number of National Wonders in your city. All the Stories buildings are Pseudo National Wonders and probably need to cost a bit more even though you can build them with a Bard or better entertainer.
Btw, I just discovered that you reduced the cost of the cathedral level buildings for the Shaman and Druid religions. This is probably wrong as they are as strong as National Wonders at least but are not limited to one in your nation. You can have 1 cathedral_1 per 4 monastery buildings and one cathedral_2 for 4 cathedral_1 buildings. It is only those two religions that are like that.
Similarly the Taxonomy Myths appear a bit cheap at the moment but I am not sure on this.
I was thinking the same thing but had just tested it the other way. I can still change it.
On another topic: It was suggested in another discussion that each animal have a Myth only but that the taxonomy sets have Myth, Story and Stories, since given the number of animals in game it is far to easy to get a high education value. It would be a lot of work to change but would make adding new ones easier. What do you think?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
By all means adjust as you see fit. I simply ask that you leave notes on these changes on the pricing documents as to why they were adjusted.
These should be very important documents for all modders working on this mod:
C2C Buildings - a core spreadsheet document that allows for sorting and filtering that should include all buildings that have a cost in the proper page tab for that type of building. One way we track the cost and the buildings that exist in the game by category. -1 cost buildings have not been well represented here and perhaps someday still should be.
and
C2C - Building Costs by Tech It may seem redundant to have 2 charts that seem to cover the same thing but this document's intention is not to be able to look at buildings from various different sorting methods so much as it is to specifically track a building to its tech or a tech to the buildings it opens up. It is the tool that I use that makes it very easy to find the base production values and why they were assigned that way. It also helps me to find chains of buildings by category and I admit the building category assignments could use some reauditing as they were hastily defined and assigned and certainly some buildings fully qualify for 2 or more categories.
No odd cost note sections exist but I welcome some new inclusion to account for that wherever its necessary. I'm trying to get a list of reasons for buildings varying from the standard costs. Such notes should also be discussed on the Recosting thread so that I can centralize those.
In many cases you never gave the buildings that were listed as Monastery II type or Cathedral II type or Temple II type a technology prerequisite. So in many cases, the prerequisite was defined as the religion for purposes of costing. The easiest way to find a seriously honest cause to retarget the cost of some of these buildings would be to find an appropriate tech prerequisite for them and to move them to those techs as the defining prereq. These were difficult to work with and I hoped you'd note that some disparity existed there that could be audited and given some definition for the cause for new costs.
Hopefully that all makes sense.
Completely agree. There are far too many available education sources from all this at the moment and I have been a little too baffled by the Myth/Story/Stories structure to suggest such a change but having looked closer, I think that's a fantastic idea (and perhaps outright necessary.)
It might be possible to enlist my wife to help with some XML code monkeying... there's a LOT of repetitive stuff you've got on your plate there and one big thing we're all hoping for soon is a final breeding structure that doesn't have its feet in multiple canoes. If you work together on some things I think you'd both benefit tremendously. Feel free to PM her on that if you have any requests. She can refuse of course... I'm not 'pimping' out her efforts. But she might be easily sold on helping to smooth out some of those really massive efforts you've got on your plate to get things all arranged into one plan. She could learn a lot from you showing her how to work with your stuff too, particularly in modularization.
Many (if not all) myths didn't even get recosted, and that makes them possibly stand out as cheap. There was no basis upon which I could define to recost them and I also didn't want to step on structures you had in mind that I didn't fully comprehend.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
There is an iGrowthPercent tag but it is not reported in the pedia and I have no idea what it does as no other building uses it. It is probably the same as for the Civics so I will need to look at those to see if the number needs to be positive or negative.
So what tech does it need to find a tree in a forest?
In most cases the tech needed for the various buildings occur way before the religion tech itself. For Druidism and Shamanism a sacred natural place and Oral Tradition is enough for example. For the sedentary religions you need buildings but for the nomadic ones the "priest" just needs what they find plus what they carry.
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
In Civ4 when you starve you don't go straight to 0 food, but back to the top of the previous bucket. So keeping food after growth is cleanly a way to provide a faster "growth" without any more ability to "grow". Putting more or less food needed to grow is an unclean fashion of the same thing, because meddling with that modifier at different times can get you the benefit on just the 1 turn you need it.
With that said, it would be great if the food storage were computed as a negative modifier, and as a multiplier at that. So 10% stored after growth internally would just multiply as though it were a 90%. Then you could never get into weird situations of storing more than 100%, or really anything even close to it.
With that said, it would be great if the food storage were computed as a negative modifier, and as a multiplier at that. So 10% stored after growth internally would just multiply as though it were a 90%. Then you could never get into weird situations of storing more than 100%, or really anything even close to it.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
It's possible buildings don't have a local tag that is fully programmed out that would create the effect. There IS a national tag that should work for civics and traits.
And that's something else to bring up here. Traits are a great way to improve on a lot of the instances where we are currently using proxy buildings in every city. That approach is a part of what slows down the game a bit because these proxy buildings get wrapped up in a lot of loops that take place going through all buildings in the city. It's not noticeable on just one use of them but the more we use this method, the slower the turns process. And the more memory that gets used recording more buildings in the city. We also have the means to use Civilization Traits now and in many cases, it could offer a big improvement over this effect building approach.
For example: I'm not sure you can even get what you want to do with this to work because as soon as the effect buildings replace the buildings that qualified the national wonder, you may be invalidating the national wonder and thus shutting it down, which then removes all the rest of the effect buildings from the nation. I'm not sure where that loop gets interrupted and hopefully buildings that require a count of prereq buildings in your empire don't continuously ask if they are remaining valid.
But either way, there's a tag for this that works on a Trait. Designing a trait, using the bCivilizationTrait boolean so it's not a part of the leader system nor selectable during developing leaders, you can have the building give the trait and that trait can give the benefit you're looking for to all cities. It wouldn't work to replace the initial buildings though, so it's not ALWAYS the best approach. Just trying to point out how it can be useful to use the new tag for giving a leader a trait from a building instead of blanketing all cities with an effect autobuilding, something that would be good to avoid if we can. Such Civilization Traits would be equally as good for national level worldview effects and so on. We could (and eventually should) use it to replace the Reincarnation effects for example.
Which is perhaps why they shouldn't be given more cost just because they are more effective. An extremely beneficial iCost to benefit ratio would make them even more desireable and if you're saying that they shouldn't take much effort or technological refinement (which Civ does count complexity of religious ritual and theory as a technological degree of refinement) to construct then perhaps these heavily beneficial buildings SHOULD be unusually cheap eh? Otherwise, I'd ask you to define what makes them expensive to build and we'll add that to the list of considerations we've made for future rounds of building cost adjustments. The trick is to figure out how we can make the establishment of a cost completely measurably procedural for those who would add to the mod in the future, including ourselves. Gut calls are fun but lead to a lot of chaotic cost assignments over time.So what tech does it need to find a tree in a forest?
And in some cases, it's more a question of material rather than tech. Take e.g. the Space Elevator: If we had CNTs in the right quantity (and a lot of money to burn), we could build it pretty much today. Most of the necessary design decisions are already known. If there was a hyper-civilization to grant us access to this we could start building. If you went by necessary techs, the Space Elevator would be on par with (or not much later than) the ISS.
Of course, you could place the Space Elevator there (with CNT requirement) and call it a project. It's not as if that would be unreasonable.
Of course, you could place the Space Elevator there (with CNT requirement) and call it a project. It's not as if that would be unreasonable.
@strategyonly
What do you think about the new picture seen in the audio options?
I couldn't find a way to use it in the launch splash screen as you wanted but at least it's in game now. ^^
What do you think about the new picture seen in the audio options?
I couldn't find a way to use it in the launch splash screen as you wanted but at least it's in game now. ^^
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
????
You posted the picture (that I recently placed in the Audio Options) in this post.
Last edited:
