Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[UncivilizedGuy]

This is not unlike my suggestion about making in-game events give you "reward codes" that could be then used on the second map's start to get specific rewards there.
Not too hard to compile, if we simply go by checking for several specific achievements and then adding some extra "confusion data" to make these codes non-shareable.
For example, giving each unique game run a (hidden) "start code ID" and making those codes CHECK their integrity to correlate to that ID.
In that way, unless you copy the entire game save (and you can add a code to prevent that as well, something that would also read even more data, like the save's Creation Date or whatever else changes after copy-pasting it), you won't be able to activate those bonus codes on another computer or even another game run.
Again, not too hard to implement with a basic keygen and a few input-output events to make this work.
This is also an alternative approach at Multi-Maps, or rather Multi-Plays, as in playing a [New Game+] based on your first game's success.
I still find it a VERY GOOD idea, seriously.

Or if you want to make things simple you just end the first scenario stating that not only did you just exodus the planet but you shared your technology with everybody else. Then when you start the second scenario everybody’s back to square one.

 

[Somebody613]

Or if you want to make things simple you just end the first scenario stating that not only did you just exodus the planet but you shared your technology with everybody else. Then when you start the second scenario everybody’s back to square one.

Which is the opposite of New Game+, which is when YOU get the bonuses, lol.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I might be showing my Civ IV ignorance here but do the early merchants have any affect on diplomacy?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I might be showing my Civ IV ignorance here but do the early merchants have any affect on diplomacy?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Not that I'm aware of.

Just seems like the gold I get from trade missions isn’t worth the effort.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Just seems like the gold I get from trade missions isn’t worth the effort.

It was higher previously and got complaints that it was too high. To some extent it all depends on how much you are challenged to produce gold and what you need it for and this balance is hard to strike perfectly, particularly with a lot of varying opinions on what is too much and what is too little. It's probably subject to further and constant tweaking and for now I'll take what you just said under advisement. It's easily adjusted now with a global in place to adjust all mission results by the % value it expresses.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

It was higher previously and got complaints that it was too high. To some extent it all depends on how much you are challenged to produce gold and what you need it for and this balance is hard to strike perfectly, particularly with a lot of varying opinions on what is too much and what is too little. It's probably subject to further and constant tweaking and for now I'll take what you just said under advisement. It's easily adjusted now with a global in place to adjust all mission results by the % value it expresses.

Relative to what my gold per turn was in my last game and with the effort and time it takes just to get a merchant across the map it just isn’t rewarding enough. I was probably getting 13 gold per turn and it took me 20 turns to just to be rewarded with 2 gold.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Relative to what my gold per turn was in my last game and with the effort and time it takes just to get a merchant across the map it just isn’t rewarding enough.

You saying that you're gold per turn was too high for it to be worth the effort? That's probably true.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Trade should be the driving force of the economy. It just seems that the reward should be higher. I suppose I could stack merchants. I’ll try that next time.

 

[raxo2222]

Trade should be the driving force of the economy. It just seems that the reward should be higher. I suppose I could stack merchants. I’ll try that next time.

There is city trade that you can see in city window, and then there is regular diplomatic trade.
So those units represent part of trade.

 

[Yudishtira]

You saying that you're gold per turn was too high for it to be worth the effort? That's probably true.

I thought you might be making the good point that it's a disincentive for running the missions when you don't need the money. I like that.

On the other hand, they are limited units for most of us (5 at a time), I don't know if you've maybe got dozens of them, in which case the returns would have to be much lower than in the limited case.

I was probably getting 13 gold per turn and it took me 20 turns to just to be rewarded with 2 gold.

On the third hand, the mission's "base amount" is 15. Can a 20-turn mission (on any speed) really give as little as 2 gold, or did you mean 2 gold per turn = 40? (2 gold from a 20-turn mission with limited units I don't think will ever be worth it).

 

[Thunderbrd]

I thought you might be making the good point that it's a disincentive for running the missions when you don't need the money. I like that.

Exactly my point.

On the other hand, they are limited units for most of us (5 at a time), I don't know if you've maybe got dozens of them, in which case the returns would have to be much lower than in the limited case.

I feel the only reason to limit them is to limit production storage.

I was probably getting 13 gold per turn and it took me 20 turns to just to be rewarded with 2 gold.

I have a hard time believing that on any setting you were getting THAT little, given that I was turning it down from some 80+ gold per mission. Scaling can hit some interesting extremes though. If this is a super fast game speed it would probably be fairly small.

 

[thomas12523]

Hi, I wanted to know if you can set an age limit ... I want the game to go from the era of prehistory to the information age. I do not want futuristic ages. Can you do something for that? Thanks and wait for your answer

 

[Thunderbrd]

It's not currently possible. The project is certainly on the list.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I thought you might be making the good point that it's a disincentive for running the missions when you don't need the money. I like that.

On the other hand, they are limited units for most of us (5 at a time), I don't know if you've maybe got dozens of them, in which case the returns would have to be much lower than in the limited case.

On the third hand, the mission's "base amount" is 15. Can a 20-turn mission (on any speed) really give as little as 2 gold, or did you mean 2 gold per turn = 40? (2 gold from a 20-turn mission with limited units I don't think will ever be worth it).

Yes it was a disincentive because I didn't need the gold that badly and also because of the effort it took to receive the reward. It was somewhere between 15 and 20 turns to reach the nearest civilization. When I completed my trade mission I only received 2 gold. I believe that is a one time reward and not per turn. I completed a few missions and it was the same amount each time.

I have a hard time believing that on any setting you were getting THAT little, given that I was turning it down from some 80+ gold per mission. Scaling can hit some interesting extremes though. If this is a super fast game speed it would probably be fairly small.

I was playing on normal speed. You think that was the issue?

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I hate to double post but I have a couple of suggestions, different topic:

Would it be possible to gift subdued animals to other civilizations?

Secondly, I prefer having the Minor Civs setting enabled when I play. I think the early game tension between civs is a bit more realistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, that setting was originally created for ROM. So it would make sense that it would obsolete at Writing. But with the longer Prehistoric Era I feel this could be terminated at an earlier tech. My suggestion is Barter. Trade between early tribes encouraged peaceful relations. Barter also appears around the same time as Tribalism. The Minor Civs setting works best, in my opinion, when civs don't have siege warfare and when they are spread apart.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I was playing on normal speed. You think that was the issue?

Yeah... I'm not completely convinced that the trade results should scale so much with gamespeed, but they do. Ironically, on a longer gamespeed, you can get the merchant to its goal much faster in comparable time. I almost think the scaling should be eliminated given that the scaling is already enforced by travel time.

Would it be possible to gift subdued animals to other civilizations?

Isn't it already possible with the advanced diplomacy options?

Secondly, I prefer having the Minor Civs setting enabled when I play. I think the early game tension between civs is a bit more realistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, that setting was originally created for ROM. So it would make sense that it would obsolete at Writing. But with the longer Prehistoric Era I feel this could be terminated at an earlier tech. My suggestion is Barter. Trade between early tribes encouraged peaceful relations. Barter also appears around the same time as Tribalism. The Minor Civs setting works best, in my opinion, when civs don't have siege warfare and when they are spread apart.

Some have suggested that previously. I don't advise this option however at all, because it can greatly impede the AI from developing along a less threatened course, and tends to give the player an edge that way.

 

[Yudishtira]

You should get more gold on faster speeds, not less (although it's probably set up the other ie. wrong way round).

The other thing to consider is that the return scales with the size of the foreign settlement. If you give "too much" for prehistoric settlements sized 1-3, the amounts as cities reach sizes 50-100 really get out of hand, especially if they scale "linearly" or above, and as better traders get better base rates.

So it's tricky, but I have to say that imo he should get a minimum of 1 gold for every turn the trip took. And if that means a Renaissance trader to a size 100 city gets too many billions, then the effect of population (and maybe even distance) needs scaling back.

 

[Thunderbrd]

You should get more gold on faster speeds, not less (although it's probably set up the other ie. wrong way round).

I tend to agree but there are arguments for scaling the other way and I just feel that eliminating the scaling is more appropriate and letting the fixed movement speed naturally scale things.

The other thing to consider is that the return scales with the size of the foreign settlement. If you give "too much" for prehistoric settlements sized 1-3, the amounts as cities reach sizes 50-100 really get out of hand, especially if they scale "linearly" or above, and as better traders get better base rates.

It's not entirely based on that but yes, you get more with larger cities being traded with and some small modifier for farther destinations.

So it's tricky, but I have to say that imo he should get a minimum of 1 gold for every turn the trip took. And if that means a Renaissance trader to a size 100 city gets too many billions, then the effect of population (and maybe even distance) needs scaling back.

I'm pretty sure it would at least min out at 1... probably. I'd be interested to see a case where it doesn't.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Isn't it already possible with the advanced diplomacy options?

I don't know. I didn't see a way to do it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

Some have suggested that previously. I don't advise this option however at all, because it can greatly impede the AI from developing along a less threatened course, and tends to give the player an edge that way.

With the gateway tech at the beginning of the Ancient Era it helps all civs sort of catch up anyway. So making the Minor Civs setting obsolete earlier rather than later would only benefit the AI. It doesn't seem like it can be too detrimental if it ends early on.