Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by strategyonly, Aug 25, 2008.
No, I was saying what upsets Joseph.
I also said what effect it would have.
Do what you think is right. If it works out for you then good. Change it how ever you see fit. Clear now? Green Light Toffer so Go! Do it your way. I'm not doing it.
Well according to some messages, the balance between production and research is very seriously off in some setting combos. I play now with large map-snail-immortal and the tech feels somewhat faster than before. It is not bad but there are some clear bugs in the amount of hammers needed to build some things. This hammer thing could be related to Tb's changes in them but these are something that need to be fixed and you yourself stated that it is easily reverted so...
If you meant individual units and buildings, then most likely Thunderbird did few oopsies when recosting buildings.
He took latest tech requirement for unit/building and he sometimes could pick earlier (lower X grid location) tech requirement or he could pick obsoleteing tech instead.
Here are predefined building and tech costs
It is now only gamespeeds option choice that change the ratio between hammer and beaker costs now, Joe gave me a clear signal to change that, so I'll look into it in the next couple of days.
About a year ago we experimented on adding a dampening effect between the research modifiers from difficulty and map size so that gamespeed would dominate the resulting tech costs. The problem we didn't think about when we tried this out was that this would change the ratio between hammer and beaker cost a lot, because we never added a similar dampening effect for the hammer modifiers from handicap and map size.
The Idea was that instead of a purely multiplicative method where all modifiers are equally strong:
Tech cost = base tech cost (5) * Map size (1.8) * difficulty (2.2) * gamespeed (10) = 5 * 1.8 * 2.2 * 10 = 198
we could dampen the effect from map size and difficulty by changing it to be cumulative like this:
Tech cost = base tech cost (5) * [Map size (1.8) + difficulty (2.2) - 1] * gamespeed (10) = 5 * 3 * 10 = 150
The experiment was interesting even though it proved to complicate things more than it was worth. It was reverted back to purely multiplicative formula in the dll some SVN versions ago, so now it is only the XML values defined for gamespeed that skew the ratio between hammer and beaker costs.
Edit: Deity and Nightmare apparently change the ratio between hammer and beaker cost when compared to all other difficulties. I will change this in my next commit.
I'm going to throw out there that the reduction in commerce for palaces does indeed cause a massive change in the time it takes to gain techs now.
Snail, prehistoric, giant, 25 turns without the 1 maintenance cost, 43 after the maintenance costs hit, reducing beakers to 60-65%
I agree, I'm wondering if I should increase commerce from palace again or drop the initial maintenance to below 1 somehow, which will then be rounded down to 0.
Dropping the maintenance won't add to the amount you are getting towards those initial techs. It thus helps to put that commerce amount back up. (I say all this going off only what I'm reading here - haven't had a chance yet to really analyze changes.)
One thing I want to say here though is that Joseph had a lot of things right, or at least very close for the majority of settings. If we strive to hit the same amount of turn times as we had and a similar ratio of construction to research, we'll be right. It was at the extremes and a few problems with the WAY we got to those totals that was mainly an issue. If we can hit the same turn times for techs then we'll be just about right for the calendar and then our work on scalar base values is finally complete, or at least in the right ballpark and can then be dialed more gradually.
Anyhow, I've got some things to fix on my end... off to go do that.
Great job. Much to await from 38.2 then.
Does anyone have a timeframe for when v. 38.2 will be released? When I heard that 38.1 had 'game-breaking' bugs and issues, I put off playing it until those were fixed, but I'd still love to play the game you've put so much work into. Very much looking forward to it.
Hoping for very soon. Maybe by the end of the weekend. Maybe.
Probably why the "how to make a mod" documentation which comes with Civ IV recommends that GlobalDefines remains the same as the default and that GlobalDefines_Alt hold the mod specific values.
This may be a bit early. Sea Critters are more dangerous than land ones compared to early rafts. Might be OK if I can get the hunter changes done.
Feel free to set a later tech, like sailing or fishing.
Someone left saved game there: Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\Modules\Faustmouse\LunarColonyDemo
Currently, work boats can't be constructed in cities that only border freshwater lakes -- and yet, work boats can be moved into freshwater lakes (through "canal" cities etc.) and there's even tiles they can work.
Why not just allow lake cities to make work boats?
It seems like WATERPROOF_CEMENT and LEAD_GLASS aren't even mentioned, that they aren't defined in CIV4TechInfos.xml
For example comment would look like:
( 037, 15) WATERPROOF_CEMENT
( 053, 19) LEAD_GLASS
Or like this
( 037, 15) WATERPROOF_CEMENT
( 053, 19) LEAD_GLASS
It's a little deeper than that in the code. Because it's not just work boats it's all naval or no naval basically. We need to give ourselves the ability to differentiate freshwater coastal prerequisites from oceanic coast prerequisites.
@Toffer90 I updated my calendar and research/production cost calculator
Excel file has now like 15 tabs or so
That mod was supposed to be merged into core before v38 as were
Real Life got in the way so it did not happen. They are on my list to merge when I can. Along with many animal myths.
I think it is no longer a case of all boats or none. I'll have to check and I may be wrong but I think we have the ability to build the earliest work boat in lake only cities. I think it was an experiment which turned out to work but was not then implemented fully.
Separate names with a comma.