Caveman 2 Cosmos

[perilousride]

I recently lost a stack of 11 workers to this hellbeast pigeon.

They probably captured the workers, then used them to build an elaborate system of nests.

 

[Koshling]

They probably captured the workers, then used them to build an elaborate system of nests.

Or settled them as slaves to go towards their production thereof!

 

[AIAndy]

Or settled them as slaves to go towards their production thereof!

And with all that production they produce spaceships before you and meet you again on Mars where you will submit to the mighty Pigeon civilization or die.

 

[perilousride]

I just figured out a way to get the AI to change it's behavior. The AI does seem to utilize techs and buildings. Suppose you had each of the leaders in the game represented by a more specific form of civilization. This means Hitler gets Nazi Germany, Alexander can have Macedonia (he pretty much ruled a conquered Greece), Pericles can have Greece, Stalin can have Communist Russia (or something that sounds way cooler). Anyway, starting technologies reflect that leaders personality. Make it so these techs are unobtainable by everyone else, and now these leaders are unique. Any unique units or buildings for this leader (even down the line) now require this tech. So, something later on can require the said tech and, for example, iron working. So, now you can see how Stalin might behave in the prehistoric period, ancient times, and so forth. Maybe there are even civics involved (since the tech is required), and they are now unique to each leader.
For example, lets say you have Napoleon. Well he is a brilliant man, very charismatic, and brave. How would this reflect his civ during prehistory?
He could have a building (which doesn't have to be a physical building) where the people just naturally follow his rule. He is an obviously great man, so the people would just gather around him. This would add stability, happiness, morale for troops, and organization (production).
Alexander could have buildings which give a promotions for all of his units (such as one where he can quickly find the weak spot in an enemy army and exploit it). There could be buildings that make the people fear or worship him.
Stalin and Hitler could have buildings (or wonders) which remove unhappiness and boost production (through fear), but kill off part of his population. This could be done on a large or small scale.
Montezuma could kill (sacrifice) his population for large amounts of culture.
If you wanted to get down to it, you could add the origin cultures of these leaders behavior. Hitler's beliefs of German pureblood stretch back to the Cimbri. They didn't mingle with Gauls and Celts. This is where Hitler got his basic idealism of Germany. It was that Germany had forgotten it's roots as a pureblood warrior society. So, they can have a warrior society, which is basically what the Nazi's were. They were a Romanized Cimbrian warrior society. Of course you have divided culture (so some other leader could end up with German culture), but maybe both things could be implimented in some way. I don't know exactly, but it would sure make the game more interesting if the leaders became more alive.
One of the main things about this game that draws me to it is the historic element. I would love to see what would happen if these leaders took their civilizations through the stone age. What would occur if Alexander tried to conquer Napoleon?
This is the mod where all of the best is being forged together. It wouldn't be as great if this type of thing was implemented anywhere else. If somewhere down the line, anything like this could be done, I think it would make the game way more exciting.

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

I don't think Unique techs are needed. Each culture has its own units and some buildings. More buildings could just be added for the cultures lacking them (which is probably a work in progress). I think the better route to take which Thunderbrd was discussing was to have leaders "die" and be replaced by new leaders that are culture/era specific. Personally I don't want Napoleon in the stone age.

What you are describing with Alexander's charisma and Stalin and Hitler promotions can already be simulated with leader traits so...I don't see the need for another mechanic.

Also, the Cimbri. Are you referring to the actual tribe? Or the "germanic" community also called the Seven Communities/Cimbri that claim to be the descendants of the Cimbri? If the latter than they are more than likely actually Celtic in origin. So they are hypocrites and Hitler was a hypocritical sociopath.

 

[draz]

And with all that production they produce spaceships before you and meet you again on Mars where you will submit to the mighty Pigeon civilization or die.

Sure, you laugh now, but they're actually the dominant force in the galaxy:

Resistance is futile!

 

[perilousride]

I was obviously refering to the tribe. I am not saying that they actually stuck by their beliefs, nor was I defending it. It doesn't matter if they, or the Nazis are hypocrites. It doesn't change the reasoning behind their actions. I am just saying what it was, which is true. People tend to think people like Hitler thought how we think nowadays. The way people thought during his time was a lot different. I personally don't like Hitler, or anybody like him. Anybody who would even lay siege to a city disgusts me, because innocent people are going to starve. However, I still remain objective.
Alexander's charisma trait doesn't do anything to make him more like Alexander. I face him in battle, and beat him easily. It all comes down to what happens in the game, and none of the leaders play out like they would. My idea would force them to have some semblance of their real persona shape their progress.
I don't see Stalin industrializing, keeping everything regulated by the state, and forcing his people to work harder through fear. Every game I play, he is pretty much irrelevant and behind in everything.
We really don't have any evidence of any great leaders during the stone age. So are you just going to make people up?
It is like when Greece came out of the dark ages, some handful of great people had to exsist that we have no record of.
Anyway, I can see why you would want to have leaders die and be replaced. It would be weird with Greece, since they hated kings for long periods of time. They more had a ruling class.
I guess you mean during classical Greece is one leader like Pericles, but that would still mean he lives a lot longer than he would anyway. So, I could be stuck with some guy I don't want during one period of time?
Edit: Also, the AI is weak and predictable. It should have some advantages based upon leadership. I want the AI not only to be able to compete with me, but eachother. I hate knowing who is going to be my main rival and which civs have no chance at all within the first era of the game.

 

[HarvesterofSorr]

All Hail The Mighty Pigeon!
Your statues will no longer be safe!

 

[Thunderbrd]

I was obviously refering to the tribe. I am not saying that they actually stuck by their beliefs, nor was I defending it. It doesn't matter if they, or the Nazis are hypocrites. It doesn't change the reasoning behind their actions. I am just saying what it was, which is true. People tend to think people like Hitler thought how we think nowadays. The way people thought during his time was a lot different. I personally don't like Hitler, or anybody like him. Anybody who would even lay siege to a city disgusts me, because innocent people are going to starve. However, I still remain objective.
Alexander's charisma trait doesn't do anything to make him more like Alexander. I face him in battle, and beat him easily. It all comes down to what happens in the game, and none of the leaders play out like they would. My idea would force them to have some semblance of their real persona shape their progress.
I don't see Stalin industrializing, keeping everything regulated by the state, and forcing his people to work harder through fear. Every game I play, he is pretty much irrelevant and behind in everything.
We really don't have any evidence of any great leaders during the stone age. So are you just going to make people up?
It is like when Greece came out of the dark ages, some handful of great people had to exsist that we have no record of.
Anyway, I can see why you would want to have leaders die and be replaced. It would be weird with Greece, since they hated kings for long periods of time. They more had a ruling class.
I guess you mean during classical Greece is one leader like Pericles, but that would still mean he lives a lot longer than he would anyway. So, I could be stuck with some guy I don't want during one period of time?
Edit: Also, the AI is weak and predictable. It should have some advantages based upon leadership. I want the AI not only to be able to compete with me, but eachother. I hate knowing who is going to be my main rival and which civs have no chance at all within the first era of the game.

The point you're making here, whether you realize it or not, is that we could do to have more indepth ai strategy structures that guide a lot more about the decisions they make. I have long thought so as well. There IS some of that in place, but it could definitely use some extreme deepening. Its something I'd like to get to eventually once I understand the ai in all areas of the coding more. I just need to improve a bit as a programmer to feel fully confident in such a venture. One thing I'd like to do that I mentioned elsewhere, would be to not only deepen how these leaders play, but also would like to establish ai routines that represent how those who have been creating and giving vast feedback to the mod might play.

Anyhow, improve the ai by deepening its strategic varieties... its on the list.


EDIT: oh, and that pigeon leaderhead graphic... FRICKING AWESOMELY HILLARIOUS!!! great laugh guys! How on Earth did you whip that up so suddenly???

 

[perilousride]

The point you're making here, whether you realize it or not, is that we could do to have more indepth ai strategy structures that guide a lot more about the decisions they make. I have long thought so as well. There IS some of that in place, but it could definitely use some extreme deepening. Its something I'd like to get to eventually once I understand the ai in all areas of the coding more. I just need to improve a bit as a programmer to feel fully confident in such a venture. One thing I'd like to do that I mentioned elsewhere, would be to not only deepen how these leaders play, but also would like to establish ai routines that represent how those who have been creating and giving vast feedback to the mod might play.

Anyhow, improve the ai by deepening its strategic varieties... its on the list.


EDIT: oh, and that pigeon leaderhead graphic... FRICKING AWESOMELY HILLARIOUS!!! great laugh guys! How on Earth did you whip that up so suddenly???

I appreciate the hard work you are doing. It seems like there is only so much you can modify AI behavior, without resorting to methods like what I came up with.
Modifying them toward player tendencies may help them to compete with the player, but it may also hurt them. The AI builds giant stacks of troops just in case. They have to be preventive of a player who may build an even larger stack. So, just in case a player builds 20 units, they might build 24. I think you should implement units requiring food just to keep this in check.
Also, if you modify every leader the same way, it still makes each leader vanilla. Even with the traits they are vanilla. They get a few bonuses for certain things, but they are all the same with a different name. They might as well be leader 1 (not the Go-Bot), leader 2, leader 3, leader 4, leader 5. It is kinda like playing a video game with the same boss at the end of every stage.
Whatever you decide this is still the best mod. You guys did a lot of great work. What I was wanting in Civ before, you guys added here.
EDIT: Oh yeah, one more thing about the leaders dying and being replaced. I usually just think of it as a long line of leaders in the same mold as the one who is represented.

 

[strategyonly]

Sure, you laugh now, but they're actually the dominant force in the galaxy:

Resistance is futile!

GREAT stuff, you ought to do stuff like that for C2C!!

 

[draz]

GREAT stuff, you ought to do stuff like that for C2C!!

Thanks, but I'm afraid I'm completely useless when it comes to original artwork, my knowledge with Photoshop ends with image editing.

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

To start off this post I would like to say that I insulted you in any way with my previous post than I apologize. I hope I didn't but I posted it earlier when I was in a terrible mood (work crap).

Modifying them toward player tendencies may help them to compete with the player, but it may also hurt them. The AI builds giant stacks of troops just in case. They have to be preventive of a player who may build an even larger stack. So, just in case a player builds 20 units, they might build 24. I think you should implement units requiring food just to keep this in check.

I do agree that this happens a lot. I would be okay with units requiring food but I would be more a fan of increased upkeep cost, maybe scaled by how good the unit is. That's just me though, I know other people think there is too little gold but I don't understand how that is at all true in shape or form.

Also, if you modify every leader the same way, it still makes each leader vanilla. Even with the traits they are vanilla. They get a few bonuses for certain things, but they are all the same with a different name. They might as well be leader 1 (not the Go-Bot), leader 2, leader 3, leader 4, leader 5. It is kinda like playing a video game with the same boss at the end of every stage.

So you're saying you would be a fan of more specialized traits? I would totally be on board with that personally. I know when Thunderbrd gets around to considering the dynamic leaders/leader units that I believe there would be some more possibilities for more unique leaders. I'm always a fan of more details.

We really don't have any evidence of any great leaders during the stone age. So are you just going to make people up?

Would that be so bad?

Anyway, I can see why you would want to have leaders die and be replaced. It would be weird with Greece, since they hated kings for long periods of time. They more had a ruling class.

I guess you mean during classical Greece is one leader like Pericles, but that would still mean he lives a lot longer than he would anyway. So, I could be stuck with some guy I don't want during one period of time?

Well hopefully, the length that your leader is the leader will be based of off government civic so the leader would. Also the leader would be chosen from your available governors so you would have control over what kind of leader you want.

 

[perilousride]

No problem at all.
I think as you guys go along with mod devlopment, you will figure out a lot of new and interesting ways of making the AI more human. I would like to see ways added to the game where a civ out of the game early can still find ways back into the thick of things.

 

[perilousride]

EDIT: I am going to upgrade to v24 and try my idea out, just to see how it changes the gameplay experience. All I am going to do it cut each of the civs I want in my game down to one leader. Then, I am going to give them each a starting tech that I feel best represents that leader's persona. Each tech will have 13 unique buildings.
So, for example, Stalin will have..
Dominant Personality
Watchful Eye
Fearful Populace
Forced Labor Increase
Deathcamp
Armored Transportation
Self Appointed Officials
State Regulated Everything
State Property
Mental Hammer
Body Disposal
Mafia Tactics
Never Say Die (Something to simulate him throwing everything at an enemy but the kitchen sink: so basically every unit would end up getting Urban Tactics as a free promotion)
I might just make a goverment civic where the state is pretty much run mafia style. You get out of line, you get whacked.
This is just a rough draft. Basically each building will reflect that leader's mindstate, and the effect that alone would have upon his civilization. So, if you had someone in the mold of Stalin during prehistoric times, he would be the dominant guy. He gains power by force. He is very forceful with everything, keeping it in a stranglehold. This will basically keep everyone in fear, and push them towards huge production bonuses at the expense of growth (since he will be killing off a lot of his own people). They will gain bonuses to Research, at the expense of growth (since people will be dying for not thinking correctly or lack of results). I will try and balance it toward what would really occur in real-life.
Hitler will have...
Dummy Currency
Export or Die
Survival of the Fittest
Recurring Speeches
Dark Utopia
Allegiance to the State
Warrior Society
Pomp and Circumstance (culture bonuses)
Super Soldier Project (just him trying to create the best warriors possible through various methods)
Death Science
Execution Procedures
War Machine
Sneak Tactics
All this is for my own personal fun, and just a test kinda thing. I'll let you know what difference it makes in the gameplay.
Sorry for the double post, I meant to edit, but the refresh the page thing made me do it on accident.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Here is an excerpt from another Mod forum on a C2C discussion. I thought the team might want to read it and consider what others are saying about the mod and their perception to C2C's implementation.

45°38'N-13°47'E wrote:
I also agree that C2C is way overdeveloped. It may be nice to have thousands of buildings and so on but it's almost impossible to play, especially on MP. There's no stable version, it's impossible to play a game from the start to the end with the same version because it's a work in progress. It's kind of playing a game were rules are changing constantly: not my kind of game, definetly. I hope that when developers will get tired of developing C2C, they will not leave it as an unfinished version; I hope there will be a final version with no bugs (or almost no bugs), that will be playable without having to deal with changing rules from one turn to another.

This post was a general summation to the preceding posts in that forum.

Maybe it's time to step back and take an overall look to see if there is still a common goal for C2C? And possibly get some of the loose ends tied down? Or has the mod lost it's way? It would seem that some of the onlookers think so.

JosEPh

 

[strategyonly]

Here is an excerpt from another Mod forum on a C2C discussion. I thought the team might want to read it and consider what others are saying about the mod and their perception to C2C's implementation.
This post was a general summation to the preceding posts in that forum.
Maybe it's time to step back and take an overall look to see if there is still a common goal for C2C? And possibly get some of the loose ends tied down? Or has the mod lost it's way? It would seem that some of the onlookers think so.
JosEPh

No offense to you, i like your input, if it be good or bad, no biggy, input is input.

BUT, 75-80% of the people that say stuff like that, DONT know exactly hopw to use C2C to its full extent., ie:

I just had a guy in a different thread ALMOST say the same thing, but he did even know about ALL the options C2C has, or for that matter how to use them., again ie: the BUG Option, didnt even know how to use it and what it was for.

Once i informed him about around OVER 100 options that you can change ingame or every turn (if he wanted to) all he was concerned about again was the buildings, and i showed him how to HIDE them or HIDE the units etc. and he was amazed then.

So really it (IMHO) comes down to knowing what your really asking or saying stuff about, anyone can say anything, but DOING something is a different story.

btw, "any" advertisement on different forums either good or bad is still "ADVERTISEMENT." And thx for writing. . . . (jj)


Didnt hurt Paris Hilton or Kim Kards , ,n, did it!!

 

[Osk21]

More buildings, civics, techs and wonders and new ones coming in every version is what I like most about this mod. You can't please everyone. People who want less would perhaps be happier with RoM or AND or another mod that isn't adding anymore.

 

[ls612]

Here is an excerpt from another Mod forum on a C2C discussion. I thought the team might want to read it and consider what others are saying about the mod and their perception to C2C's implementation.


This post was a general summation to the preceding posts in that forum.

Maybe it's time to step back and take an overall look to see if there is still a common goal for C2C? And possibly get some of the loose ends tied down? Or has the mod lost it's way? It would seem that some of the onlookers think so.

JosEPh

I have been noticing this trend for a little while. Many people have said that C2C is unstable, incomplete, or otherwise flawed, on other forums that I read. Many of us modders don't pause to walk in the shoes of an 'average' user, who doesn't understand everything we have, as SO says. However, the complaint that there is no stable version is unfortunately true. I don't remember the last SVN that had no bugs, and certainly we've had several botched releases lately.

My solution to this would be to spend an entire release cycle focusing on tying up loose ends. Our natural instinct is "more more more", but we sometimes need to pause and let stability catch up to our efforts. So, I propose that from the start of the pre-V25 freeze until the release of V26, we focus our efforts on stability and balance, and getting rid of some loose ends (future techs, disease, pollution).

We are the most popular mod on CFC, but we could have so many more users if we stopped and spent a month or so making things stable again. Multi-Maps can wait, they will bring so many loose ends with them. For now, I would like to see us step back and spend some time making the mod as polished as we can. It will pay dividends in the long term, and will set the stage nicely for Multiple Maps, the largest (IMO) undertaking so far in CIV 4 modding.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

@StrategyOnly I know it is late but here is what happened for v24 release. It took a couple of hours and I may have lost or misplaced a few changes.