Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[JosEPh_II]

No objections.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I know that the original vision for this was wrapped up in the idea that it's a legislative action and thus limited to the Judge to do it. One argument against this is that if you make it a constructable building, you're removing the whole point of the Judge unit.

Obviously, we're also determining that this is not necessarily a great thing for the AI as it is currently programmed so I suppose it hinges on me to design the AI so that it would work if we were to keep it this way.

I also wonder if perhaps these shouldn't be a series of yes/no civics within their own categories instead of buildings and at that point are judges as units necessary? I don't know if all the same effects can be included, though of course they could be since civics can create an autobuilding if need be. This might be the best way to address this from an AI perspective as the concept of strengths and weaknesses in policy is more built in to the civic AI. I think a lot of these were meant to be something you could determine locally so that would be the downside - civics are national policy choices.

 

[raxo2222]

I know that the original vision for this was wrapped up in the idea that it's a legislative action and thus limited to the Judge to do it. One argument against this is that if you make it a constructable building, you're removing the whole point of the Judge unit.

Obviously, we're also determining that this is not necessarily a great thing for the AI as it is currently programmed so I suppose it hinges on me to design the AI so that it would work if we were to keep it this way.

I also wonder if perhaps these shouldn't be a series of yes/no civics within their own categories instead of buildings and at that point are judges as units necessary? I don't know if all the same effects can be included, though of course they could be since civics can create an autobuilding if need be. This might be the best way to address this from an AI perspective as the concept of strengths and weaknesses in policy is more built in to the civic AI. I think a lot of these were meant to be something you could determine locally so that would be the downside - civics are national policy choices.

Judge still can place those buildings - that is player can place them trough Judge or build it in city and AI can simply build it - cost is same as Judge, so that wouldn't be too much difference, just that building ordinance would be same as building Judge and immediately using it for ordinance in same city.

Only four ordinances, that are banning buildings will be unbuildable - they don't reduce properties, so there was no reason to make those buildable.
Those building banning ordinances had local version, and property reducing ones didn't except for smoking ban.

As for converting them to civics:
How you would prevent "yes/no" civic categories from displaying outside of civic screen?
There are 11 ordinances, so in old way it would be 11 new categories.

I guess there would be new screen for "policies" or "edicts", where you could have have things on/off.

 

[Thunderbrd]

How you would prevent "yes/no" civic categories from displaying outside of civic screen?

Not sure what you're asking.

There are 11 ordinances, so in old way it would be 11 new categories.

This is true. And it may open us up to considering more answers than simply yes/no as well. Not really seeing this as a downside.

I guess there would be new screen for "policies" or "edicts", where you could have have things on/off.

That was the original plan that ordinances branched off from. Maybe just setup through civics with a new boolean on the category we could fairly easily design a different screen for them? I dunno. But since I long ago proposed such a screen, I've learned that the AI is the main issue and civic AI is actually pretty good.



Different subject for a moment:
@Toffer90 : I'm trying your world map again and if I could make one request, it would be to grab another mapscript's coding to place starting settlers at the best city spots on the map. It's very clear and frustrating that this map makes no effort to optimize the starting spots for the initial tribes.

 

[raxo2222]

Not sure what you're asking.

Civic category icons are displayed in diplomacy window, where you trade things with AI, Foreign Advisor (along with civic category abbreviation) screen and probably in few other places.

This means those places suddenly would be suddenly littered with such policies.

 

[Toffer90]

@Toffer90 : I'm trying your world map again and if I could make one request, it would be to grab another mapscript's coding to place starting settlers at the best city spots on the map. It's very clear and frustrating that this map makes no effort to optimize the starting spots for the initial tribes.

It does assign value to all plots before it assign starting plot to all players. Those values are based on base plot yield and resources within the fat cross as well as the center plot being on a hill or having fresh water or having coast access.
The player on the highest difficulty does however get a plot with lower value than those on a lower difficulty.

There are also rules that make it so that many high value plots are disqualified because starting positions are supposed to be as spread across the available space as possible. A player with a difficulty higher than the AI will always get the worst starting plot among the X best plots that satisfies the distance factor. X is the number of starting players.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Civic category icons are displayed in diplomacy window, where you trade things with AI, Foreign Advisor (along with civic category abbreviation) screen and probably in few other places.

What makes it bad for them to be displayed there?

 

[raxo2222]

What makes it bad for them to be displayed there?

There is simply not enough space

At least on 1280x1024 resolution.

 

[Thunderbrd]

It does assign value to all plots before it assign starting plot to all players.
The player on the highest difficulty does however get a plot with lower value than those on a lower difficulty.

There are also rules that make it so that many high value plots are disqualified because starting positions are supposed to be as spread across the available space as possible. A player with a difficulty higher than the AI will always get the worst starting plot among the X best plots that satisfies the distance factor. X is the number of starting players.

Ah... so that's why. Starting a Deity game (I'm told it's pretty challenging) had something to do with why I got no rivers in sight, only a few resources and wretched production tiles. hmm... the thinking behind it is solid at least.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There is simply not enough space

At least on 1280x1024 resolution.

Would it not be better to figure out how to change that? Such as provide scrollbars where necessary, that sort of thing?

 

[Toffer90]

Ah... so that's why. Starting a Deity game (I'm told it's pretty challenging) had something to do with why I got no rivers in sight, only a few resources and wretched production tiles. hmm... the thinking behind it is solid at least.

This tag in handicap XML controls how bad the starting plot should be relative to what that tag is for all the other players:
<iStartingLocPercent>

 

[raxo2222]

Would it not be better to figure out how to change that? Such as provide scrollbars where necessary, that sort of thing?

I guess scrollbars here and there would work, but still having separate policies would look bit messy.
Also you would need new icons for each of such civic in policy type categories.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I guess scrollbars here and there would work, but still having separate policies would look bit messy.
Also you would need new icons for each of such civic in policy type categories.

The icons would be kinda fun to do but the main benefit here is that the AI would evaluate the pros and cons better than it would through buildings alone. Besides, civics are policies and ordinances are more about a policy than about a building.

 

[Thunderbrd]

This tag in handicap XML controls how bad the starting plot should be relative to what that tag is for all the other players:
<iStartingLocPercent>

Interesting. Didn't realize we even had a tag for that. Huh.

 

[raxo2222]

The icons would be kinda fun to do but the main benefit here is that the AI would evaluate the pros and cons better than it would through buildings alone. Besides, civics are policies and ordinances are more about a policy than about a building.

Property reducing ordinances doesn't have any cons except for tiny gold cost now.
You still can use judge to "build" those ordinances.

Taxonomy myths and stories exist as buildable buildings too for example.

 

[Thunderbrd]

You still can use judge to "build" those ordinances.

Are judges cheaper to establish the ordinance with? More expensive? (I'm talking production here)

Taxonomy myths and stories exist as buildable buildings too for example.

Something else I'm not sure is necessarily a good thing.

 

[raxo2222]

Are judges cheaper to establish the ordinance with? More expensive? (I'm talking production here)

Something else I'm not sure is necessarily a good thing.

Ordinances have exactly same production cost as judges in XML.
In game it depends if you have Size Matters, as with it all units are cheaper (SM units global is 70 and building cost global is 105).

Taxonomy myths can be build by certain subdued animals. too.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Ordinances have exactly same production cost as judges in XML.
In game it depends if you have Size Matters, as with it all units are cheaper.

Judges are also subject to all other ways that units are faster or slower in production. It's hard to say for sure but even without SM usually a unit is faster to train than a building is to construct with the same cost. Sorta depends on a number of factors, whether you've built things like pulleys and treadmills and those buildings that give production speed for unit training.

 

[raxo2222]

Judges are also subject to all other ways that units are faster or slower in production. It's hard to say for sure but even without SM usually a unit is faster to train than a building is to construct with the same cost. Sorta depends on a number of factors, whether you've built things like pulleys and treadmills and those buildings that give production speed for unit training.

At this stage of game (Industrial - Information era when ordinances are unlocked) cost of judge (225) is low - building at Labor Union (first unlocked ordnance) costs less than 800 and Urban Culture Xgrid tech buildings cost lest than 1900.

Modern era building cost is multiplied by 1.3
Unit with SM has cost multiplier of 0.7 instead of 1.05.
(225/1.3)*0.85~= 150.
So ordnance will cost 120 in XML

Judge cost 168 with SM and 236 without SM in game (Normal speed).
Ordinances now cost around 196 - 212 depending on era where they reside - halfway between Judge cost with and without SM (202).

 

[Yudishtira]

Please consider doing something about Matriarchy and Patriarchy at the same time. They don't belong in their current category, where they are among options which they should be able to coexist with.