Civilopedia updating for v28

[wolfensoul9]

Seeing as how multiple members of the team have expressed their desire to work on updated the pedia for v28, I thought to make a thread to discuss as such.

Of the top of my head, some things that need doing are...

Organizing the resources. Hydro had a good system in separating them into bonus, strategic, luxury, culture, and "building produced". I think this really needs to be done.

Updating the many concepts that need it. Don't know which ones really need it off the top of my head, but I'm sure they exist.

Clicking on the link for the upgraded version of the beacon improvement, the lighthouse improvement, takes you invariably to the lighthouse building. There's the same issue with clicking on the lumbermill improvement from its lower forms; it takes you to the lumbermill building.

Anything else..?

 

[Taxman66]

1. There is a lot of missing or broken text.

2. There are many, many items that are not completely explained or have been updated/changed in the game but not in their pedia entries (e.g. #1 Great Farmer says he can build any of >list<; in actuality he can build any of that list *if* you already have possession of it... that is he can't create resources you don't have access to. #2 Neinderthals picture display on the pedia states that it has a STR of 4. In the text (and combat hover info) he has a STR of 3).

 

[LumenAngel]

In ressource pages, we dont have in with tech it become obsolete
Civics by category too can be useful
In page for Great People, listing wonders/civics affecting them
A special page for auto-building building by categoy (Crime, Pollution, Disease, Housing...)

 

[ls612]

Well, first of all the pages for Crime and Pollution should actually be there in V27, for some reason the pedia was broken in V26, go figure. Other than that, I'm considering updating the new concepts pages with some strategy tips for the concepts.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Organizing the resources. Hydro had a good system in separating them into bonus, strategic, luxury, culture, and "building produced". I think this really needs to be done.

Aside from a hand full of exceptions the "goods" system was totally dismantled and replaced with resources once we broke the resource barrier. All they are now are map resources vs building produced resources. But that has been around since vanilla civ such as Hit Movies have always been a building produced resource.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

We will look at splitting the resources into Culture, Map and Manufactured and maybe look at seeing if we need the pages to be different or if they can just use the same code.

 

[Koshling]

We will look at splitting the resources into Culture, Map and Manufactured and maybe look at seeing if we need the pages to be different or if they can just use the same code.

We can easily add a tag just to categorize them for Pedia purposes.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

We can easily add a tag just to categorize them for Pedia purposes.

You can deduce which is which already. Map resources have a non-zero value in map iConstAppearance where as the others do not. Culture ones have "CULTURE" in their name.

 

[Koshling]

You can deduce which is which already. Map resources have a non-zero value in map iConstAppearance where as the others do not. Culture ones have "CULTURE" in their name.

Going off the name sucks though

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'll be fixing up the Sub-Combat Class references on unit pages. Actually looking forward to some of my first steps into python. Been doin' some readin' up on it all.

 

[wolfensoul9]

Although I'm assuming this would probably be a pretty massive undertaking, base bts has a feature in the pedia that shows what special units replace. Next to the "upgrades to", there's a similar "replaces". So, so handy for comparing the benefits of special, unique units to their more commonstock brethren.

C2C lacks this feature...

Also, and this stuns me, but...

I cannot find the entries for either hills or peaks ANYWHERE in the pedia. What in the world?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Although I'm assuming this would probably be a pretty massive undertaking, base bts has a feature in the pedia that shows what special units replace. Next to the "upgrades to", there's a similar "replaces". So, so handy for comparing the benefits of special, unique units to their more commonstock brethren.

There is a Unit Upgrade tree in the civpedia and all unit's pedia pages show what they upgrade to.

When you say "special" do you mean the culture units? Because none of them replace units, they just upgrade into units. This is to prevent super units where a UU would upgrade into another UU. Which people use to exploit.

 

[wolfensoul9]

There is a Unit Upgrade tree in the civpedia and all unit's pedia pages show what they upgrade to.

When you say "special" do you mean the culture units? Because none of them replace units, they just upgrade into units. This is to prevent super units where a UU would upgrade into another UU. Which people use to exploit.

Hydro, you know as well as I do that that thing is about as weildy as a flamethrower...especially compared to bts's system. But yes, you are correct in that I was mistaken that the culture units are not replacements. They are as far as I'm aware, invariably a modification on a specific kind of unit. Koas are polynesian super-swordsmen, for example. Alot of the time in the description, it will give a brief line of "Such and such are blankety-blank's knight/axeman/archer". While this is a good start, I which there was a button I could press on the page for the culture unit in question that takes me to the "replacement", so I can easily compare.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

I'll redo some of the civic descriptions in the 'pedia tonight

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Although I'm assuming this would probably be a pretty massive undertaking, base bts has a feature in the pedia that shows what special units replace. Next to the "upgrades to", there's a similar "replaces". So, so handy for comparing the benefits of special, unique units to their more commonstock brethren.

C2C lacks this feature...

Also, and this stuns me, but...

I cannot find the entries for either hills or peaks ANYWHERE in the pedia. What in the world?

Hydro, you know as well as I do that that thing is about as weildy as a flamethrower...especially compared to bts's system. But yes, you are correct in that I was mistaken that the culture units are not replacements. They are as far as I'm aware, invariably a modification on a specific kind of unit. Koas are polynesian super-swordsmen, for example. Alot of the time in the description, it will give a brief line of "Such and such are blankety-blank's knight/axeman/archer". While this is a good start, I which there was a button I could press on the page for the culture unit in question that takes me to the "replacement", so I can easily compare.

All this stuff is generated by code so if a unit does not replace another then it will not show up in the pedia as replacing it. It sounds like you want something in the pedia which says that unit A is a special type of unit B or in your example Koas are a special swordsman. This is reasonable but there is noting in the XML describing the Koas that can be used to produce that in the pedia at the moment. It would require a new tag, ie dll work and python work to get it into the pedia.

Hills and peaks are don't show up in the base Civ pedia either. This is because they are not terrain. It is just the way the exe/graphics engine are built and we can't do anything change them.

 

[wolfensoul9]

Alright, well, fair enough on the replacement issue.

But I thought hills and peaks, like forests and jungles, were terrain features.

Shouldn't they be under the "terrain features" section..?

 

[Hydromancerx]

I have to agree. While some culture units fall in similar categories as common units some don't always fall in the same category or straddle different categories. Unlike BTS UUs no longer replace other units (ex. Samurai use to replace the Swordsman).

 

[wolfensoul9]

I have to agree. While some culture units fall in similar categories as common units some don't always fall in the same category or straddle different categories. Unlike BTS UUs no longer replace other units (ex. Samurai use to replace the Swordsman).

Actually, well, the vast majority are these semi-replacements. At least up until the classical era, I'm sure of. After that, I'm not familiar with the stats of the regular units to know which unit a culture unit is a semi-replacement of.

As Koshling said, it would be a good feature, but it's too demanding, so that settles that.

And I believe the samurai was a maceman replacement, haha...

 

[Thunderbrd]

There are no replacements in C2C. You can build a Samurai and a Macemen out of the same city, even have both queued up, whereas in BtS, if you had a UU, it would completely replace your ability to build the more 'standard' unit. C2C doesn't do this but rather limits (depending on game option anyhow) the amount you can build the superior unit. Are units comparable? Sure but they haven't been designed with that aspect of comparison as in-mind as the original BtS designers needed to. Some unique cultural units here have very little to do with any other contemporary unit (Carib Blowgunners, Clockwork Golem, just to name a few...)

 

[wolfensoul9]

There are no replacements in C2C. You can build a Samurai and a Macemen out of the same city, even have both queued up, whereas in BtS, if you had a UU, it would completely replace your ability to build the more 'standard' unit. C2C doesn't do this but rather limits (depending on game option anyhow) the amount you can build the superior unit. Are units comparable? Sure but they haven't been designed with that aspect of comparison as in-mind as the original BtS designers needed to. Some unique cultural units here have very little to do with any other contemporary unit (Carib Blowgunners, Clockwork Golem, just to name a few...)

Yes, I am aware that there are no literal replacements. However, from what I can see from the culture units at least up until the classical era, they very much have been designed as "a spearman with better against melee" or, "an archer with mobility", or something along those lines. The great majority of them, in fact.

I just wish it was easier to ascertain these improvements over the normal unit via the civilopedia.