Caveman 2 Cosmos

[Maltazard]

How much do you think newer CPUs are impacting turn times in C2C? One of the benefits of "retro gaming" should be amazing performance on the new, modern platforms... well, at least to some extent. Every new generation of CPUs from Intel we're supposedly getting anything between an 8% to 15% performance improvement (IPC - instructions per cycle or math operations per hertz). Personally I've changed 4 PCs over the years playing C2C, but over that time C2C has also seen many major improvements on turn times from the modders side - so it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison. We know that other improvements like the number of cores (say, 1 for the game and 3 for the rest of your PC in the background should be plenty), RAM size (3GB for the game and again 5GB for windows' shenanigans in the background is plenty) and even GPUs (you do want at least 2GB of dedicated video memory in my experience though 4GB are better) are irrelevant past a certain point, since the game simply can't use them, but single threaded CPU performance should still be the most relevant element to turn times to this day... and this is true for most old games, not just CivIV.
There are other old games which instead run worse on modern systems due to behind the scene compatibility issues and whatnot, but thankfully CivIV seems to be hanging on just fine to this day, somehow.

Going from an i7 7700hq to an i710750hq (a 4 generations gap) felt like a marginal improvement to me. It's true however that there wasn't a significant single threaded improvement in performance in this gap, since they were focused on multi threaded performance instead. 11th and 12th gen have been boasting about much higer single threaded performance again and I'd love to check them out someday. Unfortunately I don't have any AMD systems at hand, but in theory their last three generations of CPUs should be great for single threaded performance as well. Also these are laptop CPUs so clearly inferior to desktop parts, although not by crazy margins nowadays.

I wonder if in Windows 11 with the new thread scheduler assigning priority tasks to performance cores in new intel CPUs and a tool such as throttlestop to specifically tune up the CPU to give the most out of single threaded performance at the cost of multi threaded performance, one could achieve a "turbo state" for the game and significantly speed up turn times that way... When I make the switch to W11 in a couple years it's probably going to be the first thing I try. Anyone tried anything like this?

 

[Somebody613]

How much do you think newer CPUs are impacting turn times in C2C? One of the benefits of "retro gaming" should be amazing performance on the new, modern platforms... well, at least to some extent. Every new generation of CPUs from Intel we're supposedly getting anything between an 8% to 15% performance improvement (IPC - instructions per cycle or math operations per hertz). Personally I've changed 4 PCs over the years playing C2C, but over that time C2C has also seen many major improvements on turn times from the modders side - so it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison. We know that other improvements like the number of cores (say, 1 for the game and 3 for the rest of your PC in the background should be plenty), RAM size (3GB for the game and again 5GB for windows' shenanigans in the background is plenty) and even GPUs (you do want at least 2GB of dedicated video memory in my experience though 4GB are better) are irrelevant past a certain point, since the game simply can't use them, but single threaded CPU performance should still be the most relevant element to turn times to this day... and this is true for most old games, not just CivIV.
There are other old games which instead run worse on modern systems due to behind the scene compatibility issues and whatnot, but thankfully CivIV seems to be hanging on just fine to this day, somehow.

Going from an i7 7700hq to an i710750hq (a 4 generations gap) felt like a marginal improvement to me. It's true however that there wasn't a significant single threaded improvement in performance in this gap, since they were focused on multi threaded performance instead. 11th and 12th gen have been boasting about much higer single threaded performance again and I'd love to check them out someday. Unfortunately I don't have any AMD systems at hand, but in theory their last three generations of CPUs should be great for single threaded performance as well. Also these are laptop CPUs so clearly inferior to desktop parts, although not by crazy margins nowadays.

I wonder if in Windows 11 with the new thread scheduler assigning priority tasks to performance cores in new intel CPUs and a tool such as throttlestop to specifically tune up the CPU to give the most out of single threaded performance at the cost of multi threaded performance, one could achieve a "turbo state" for the game and significantly speed up turn times that way... When I make the switch to W11 in a couple years it's probably going to be the first thing I try. Anyone tried anything like this?

Or maybe we just need to hijack Firaxis and break the Civ4.exe code, lol.

 

[Maltazard]

Well, when Bethesda released Skyrim for the second time they were kind enough to port the exe to 64bit and also to remove the hard cap on mods that can be installed. It was quite a revolution, since now the game could support hundreds of mods of far greater scope than before.
Unfortunately though, Firaxis doesn't seem to care at all about remasters or remakes, and if they did, my bet would be on some cheesy Civ2 for android port, or something like that. They haven't even tried to remaster Alpha Centaury yet, which would be such a major nostalgia hit with the public. Shame.

 

[Somebody613]

Well, when Bethesda released Skyrim for the second time they were kind enough to port the exe to 64bit and also to remove the hard cap on mods that can be installed. It was quite a revolution, since now the game could support hundreds of mods of far greater scope than before.
Unfortunately though, Firaxis doesn't seem to care at all about remasters or remakes, and if they did, my bet would be on some cheesy Civ2 for android port, or something like that. They haven't even tried to remaster Alpha Centaury yet, which would be such a major nostalgia hit with the public. Shame.

And outright stupid.
Imagine how popular a full-fledged modern-PC-supported C2C would become, lol.
And they could even make it with DLCs, and sell those DLCs all the time, lol.
Just look at something like CK3, ya know.
Heck, there's such a ton of new and improved concepts in C2C, that even using just a few of them as bait would still be viable, and then make a ton more into DLCs.
Or, better yet, include ALL concepts, but at a limited scale.
Like, include Animals, but only, say, half of the modern ones, no prehistoric ones, and no exotic ones (yet to come, but with NO hardware limitations, you can really make 100s of them, lol).
And then Alien Animals as a Space DLC.
Also, Custom Civs - include 50 (compared to Vanilla's, what, 30 maybe), and then DLC 250 more Civs, lol.
This obviously means ALSO raising the Civ Cap itself to ridiculous heights - and finally creating a REAL Real Earth Map for Civ, wow.
Real Earth - as in having 200+ Civs ALL AT ONCE and PLAYABLE, of course.
Heck, it kinda can be done NOW (though would quickly turn to awful lag, but I did test a 100-civ game, and it loaded fine), so it definitely can be done on a modern engine, lol.
Include Merging Units, but with a hardcoded limit of maybe 9x, yet DLC unlocking it the way it works now.
Include Heroes, but with a hardcoded cap of hiring only 3 of them per Civ, again lifted by DLC.
And then there are not-yet-implemented (or even thought of) massive concepts like Weapons/Armor, Personal Skills, Unit Roleplay, and so on.
In fact, C2C could just as well "merge" with CK3, but with less story-type roleplaying and more personalized unit upgrading/promoting/genetics.
Heck, you could end up literally allowing for "personalized Heroes" (and if allowed, even UNITS, mwahahaha) in the rather literal sense, and I mean it.
The only NECESSARY "down-side" would be that the GRAPHICS must stay more or less the same-ish, or it would kill the PC all by itself.
But again, the people who play for the sake of STRATEGY (like myself) would totally not care for "oldies-goodies", if it was really good strategically (and it WOULD be).
Etc. etc. etc.
And that's just the current C2C, which is technically half-baked and could include a few dozens of CONCEPTS more, what with the dumb memory limits being lifted.
Seriously, the owners NOT outright hiring these modders for the new official game of C2C - is the stupidest decision ECONOMICALLY just as well as SOCIALLY.
They are literally shooting themselves in the foot, dammit.

 

[tmv]

As far as I am concerned, they could simply offer a 64bit exe as a DLC (both over Steam and over GOG). Even at the price of an expansion. There are quite a few people (especially here, I think) who would be more interested in that than in many AAA titles.

 

[BigSmac]

With latest SVN I seem to raze all cities I attack instead of capturing them. I remember being given a choice to raze or capture cities when they were size 2 or higher when my attack started, but now even size 5 cities with wonders built just raze with no choice. I am sure i have not switched the option "always raze" on. Thought I might have and started a new game and now it's the same. Has something changed in this? I am in early stage of the game still, Ancient Era.

edit: I mean the option on advanced start "always raze cities" is not checked.

 

[Blazenclaw]

With latest SVN I seem to raze all cities I attack instead of capturing them. ...
edit: I mean the option on advanced start "always raze cities" is not checked.

Maybe you've one city challenge enabled?
If not and you can't figure it out, upload save I guess.

 

[Mr Smith]

With latest SVN I seem to raze all cities I attack instead of capturing them.

Try unchecking emergency draft in RevDCM tab.

 

[Trantor]

If you play passively? 101%.
If you "cheat" a bit (Neanderthals and/or Coyote Runners)? You should be able to grow well enough for it to be winnable.
In fact, I'm gonna check your save now - and maybe switch my own game from Eternity to Ultrafast.
After all, the whole idea is about GAME BALANCE, and a quicker building speed is a much better solution as well.
I did learn a thing or a two from this LOOONG game, so I guess I'll be much smarter this time in playing a FAST game as well.
So, kinda, thanks for pushing me to switch to a more bearable game, loool.

Rz January 23, AD-2035

MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.

www.mediafire.com

my game file

only tech steal rate on capturing city is tweaked

 

[Somebody613]

Rz January 23, AD-2035

MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.

www.mediafire.com

my game file

only tech steal rate on capturing city is tweaked

My game is totally unedited.
The only non-random thing is me placing the starting location on top of the Stone resource that also has the Obsidian resource next to it - which is right in the official map design, lol.
Since this can happen at a random chance anyways (if I start enough games at random locations), I don't consider this to be cheating whatsoever.
And I haven't edited absolutely anything else, beyond adding more Civs (the Mega Pack) to the roster (which isn't affecting the game much, obviously).
So, yes, my game is absolutely legit, even if started at somewhat manually relaxed conditions.
And I'm still winning it by a huge margin (too lazy to upload now, maybe later, when I shall have bigger "achievements", lol).
Top-1 score that is TWICE that of #2's.
Twice as many cities as anyone else (half were captured, half were built by me), too.
And I have mounted units that are literally at 90 Strength and 3 attacks-per-turn, lol.
Still in early Medieval, I think, or similarly (unlocked Vassalage not long ago, have 3 vassals already, and going for more).
Speaking of vassals, I'm also planning on going in a similar route like last game, but this time giving the "bitten off" cities to my vassals, instead of myself OR random civs.
Not sure when vassals tend to break off, so will need to be a bit careful with that, since I want to keep them, instead of having to EAT them and then again deal with the city redistribution Hell.

 

[BigSmac]

Maybe you've one city challenge enabled?
If not and you can't figure it out, upload save I guess.

No it's not 1 city challenge... I'll try the emergency draft and attack someone to see what happens. If it's the same, I'll upload the save

 

[BigSmac]

Try unchecking emergency draft in RevDCM tab.

I'll try and see what difference that makes!

 

[BigSmac]

Ok, that was easy. It was caused by emergency draft. Didn't realize that would cause the razing of a captured city (don't think it used to be that way in previous versions but might be wrong) Thought it would deplete population till there was 1 left and that the captured city would be handed over at size 1.

Anyways it's solved, thanks @Blazenclaw and @Mr Smith

 

[Mr Smith]

Anyways it's solved, thanks @Blazenclaw and @Mr Smith

You are welcome. Not sure if it's already implemented, but there were supposed to be limits for draft, at least per turn. So it will be possible to turn this back on, since it's a nice feature, but for now disabling is the only option, though you can choose at which stage to take it.

 

[Somebody613]

Ok, that was easy. It was caused by emergency draft. Didn't realize that would cause the razing of a captured city (don't think it used to be that way in previous versions but might be wrong) Thought it would deplete population till there was 1 left and that the captured city would be handed over at size 1.

Anyways it's solved, thanks @Blazenclaw and @Mr Smith

I'm glad that you spared me the wasted game run that I would spend on figuring that out myself, lol.

 

[Mr Smith]

I'm glad that you spared me the wasted game run that I would spend on figuring that out myself, lol.

The issue was raised in Discord about a month ago, since it's easier to reach devs there, so consider joining to keep up with events.

 

[Divizor]

Hello. Is it possible to assign a different portrait to the leader when creating the map?

 

[Mr Smith]

Hello. Is it possible to assign a different portrait to the leader when creating the map?

You can do it manually by replacing files or art entry for that leader, but making a feature would just not be worth the time.

 

[Divizor]

You can do it manually by replacing files or art entry for that leader, but making a feature would just not be worth the time.

Thanks. In this case, is it possible to change the flag of the state in the scenario? There is a text of the form "FlagDecal=Art/Interface/TeamColor/GermanyFlag.dds" , but it is not clear how the link to another flag should look like

 

[Mr Smith]

Thanks. In this case, is it possible to change the flag of the state in the scenario? There is a text of the form "FlagDecal=Art/Interface/TeamColor/GermanyFlag.dds" , but it is not clear how the link to another flag should look like

Just switch name with the nation you had in mind or if you want something original - move it to C2C/Assets first, then link in the same manner. It's a regular file path.