Community Patch-undocumented changes

[JFD]

Well, there wasn't much room to be satisfied or otherwise back then. If I'm told no by the guys in charge of DLL development, who am I to say otherwise? It's hard to speculate on the circumstances beyond that. Suffice to say, I still reluctantly accept that maybe there's nothing to be done, but that's not to say the issue doesn't still concern and confuse me.

I can't speak for others, but I think I've contributed varingly over the years, between, sure, complaints, but also requests, hashing out ways in which to improve certain features, assisting with certain components, and offering support, advice, insight, and permission for my other works to be adapted for VP - notwithstanding the smaller scale supports I make for VP in my mods. I think its a bit disingenuous to say I've separated myself from the CPP. I'm not an active part to it like some others, sure, but that's because, for the most part, the CP develops well without my input and the CBP is simply not something I have any business to discuss. When the CP does develop in a way that needs my attention - and this has been complaint as much as request and assistance, I think - then I often raise that attention. I'd forgotten that I'd raised these issues of Siege/Naval changes previously, and this thread prompted the reminder that they were issues that stood out to me - just, clearly, the explanation I got didn't stick. I'm sorry to retread old issues that indeed I've previously brought up, and as I said I'm not pushing for change for the various reasons I've outlined, but I do think I'm allowed at least to raise an issue that concerns me, if only to air them, but also to fill out what was a gap in my memory of them being explained already as uncompromisable. Ofc, the fact that I drop out of Civ V modding for months on end from time to time probably does me no favours in terms of perceived prescence (tutorials soon tm D: ).

I don't want things to get muddled, or overly complicated, nor to really have any arguments. It's as simple as I remembered these two changes that are a bit more impactful on the player's experience than I like, and wanted to bring them up because I wasn't in a position to do so via the usual channels (GitHub) and had hoped someone else might, or at least might agree with these concerns enough to grab the higher-ups attentions. After the realization that I really should bring them up to GitHub rather than just aimlessly rant, I discovered that I'd actually brought it up and received an answer - having remembered, or known this I wouldn't have said anything tbh. I don't know how I felt then but looking back the answer I got is fairly unsatisfying and ofc doesn't account for what I've already said here about diminishing gameplay and a 'too far' threshold for AI improvements that impact gameplay. But because I don't want to have that argument, because it's not really my place to have it (because of the late development of the CPP, as well as my relatively outside position, ignorance in DLL, deference for the larger project as a whole and now in hindsight because it's already been raised by me), I'm just raising concerns that can be freely ignored or not, but ones I want to raise anyway so no one thinks such changes are universally loved and because this seemed precisely the subject this thread invited, regardless of personal experiences viz. their QoL or improvement on tedium or what have you.

Sorry to make this more of a big deal than it is D: It should go without saying but then that's a silly saying - I will, and have, gladly take these two changes years over for the infinitely critical nature of CP and I forever humbly defer to His Codeliness in such matters. Frankly, I don't know enough about DLL to presume that theres anything more than what Illteroi originally told me, and knowing now that I did raise this issue before, I'm more content with leaving the issue than I was when I first started on this thread. Anyway, I hope one day the ladgazine can help showcase my appreciation and respect for this project as a whole because maybe my oft-absence and relative behind-the-scenes participation obfuscates just how important CP is to me both personally and in terms of propping up the modding community.

 

[Chrisy15]

2. I found a bug: no gold from religion with Tithe (+1 Gold for every 4 followers of this religion)

The Gold is instead given to the Capital, or well more likely the Holy City, and as such is subject to its modifiers; because Tithe needed buffing of course.

And yeah, I should probably say these things in a more appropriate place; but given my previous reception when I've raised my issues, and given that my attempts to convey my issues through Jifford (under the impression that he'd be heard better) have been brushed aside I don't see why I should bother hoping that the CP will ever be considered independently of the CBP.

 

[ashendashin]

Well, there wasn't much room to be satisfied or otherwise back then. If I'm told no by the guys in charge of DLL development, who am I to say otherwise? It's hard to speculate on the circumstances beyond that. Suffice to say, I still reluctantly accept that maybe there's nothing to be done, but that's not to say the issue doesn't still concern and confuse me.

I can't speak for others, but I think I've contributed varingly over the years, between, sure, complaints, but also requests, hashing out ways in which to improve certain features, assisting with certain components, and offering support, advice, insight, and permission for my other works to be adapted for VP - notwithstanding the smaller scale supports I make for VP in my mods. I think its a bit disingenuous to say I've separated myself from the CPP. I'm not an active part to it like some others, sure, but that's because, for the most part, the CP develops well without my input and the CBP is simply not something I have any business to discuss. When the CP does develop in a way that needs my attention - and this has been complaint as much as request and assistance, I think - then I often raise that attention. I'd forgotten that I'd raised these issues of Siege/Naval changes previously, and this thread prompted the reminder that they were issues that stood out to me - just, clearly, the explanation I got didn't stick. I'm sorry to retread old issues that indeed I've previously brought up, and as I said I'm not pushing for change for the various reasons I've outlined, but I do think I'm allowed at least to raise an issue that concerns me, if only to air them, but also to fill out what was a gap in my memory of them being explained already as uncompromisable.

Hey, this also sort of counts as discussion I wanted to see. I'm well aware that you've contributed to development, but otherwise we don't exactly have any real idea of how many people are taking issue with the changes deemed necessary by the VP community. You've your own discord with your own plethora of mods that are built for vanilla, which at this point most people here barely remember(vanilla, that is). IIRC, it was a large point of discussion whether the benefits from the changes were worth encroaching on vanilla gameplay, but ultimately they were made anyway without much in the way of further argument. Now, well over a year later, people who actually don't play with the CBO are discussing it again. See what I mean? We have tunnel vision despite our consideration for what the community patch is supposed to be because we almost entirely only have ourselves to argue with. You guys have your own support channels for your mods and the community that still uses the CP without the CBO isn't exactly around to badger G about these things.
I want to stress that I'm not at all against what you're asking for. I'm throwing in my own voice in this necro'd thread, since, you know, this is all kinda in the wrong place and time.

Edit:
I'm spending waaay too much time trying to figure out how to respectfully convey my meaning here. I'm missing out on entire paragraphs from you.

 

[JFD]

Oh wow, I didn't even realise this thread was necro'd tbh. Whoop

Yeah, I get that. One of the failings of a lack of active participation from non-VP users/CP-only users is that its sort of a reverse echo chamber I guess - silence breeds silence. I don't often feel like I want to push an issue too far if no one else is bothered by it, or if someone else is bothered by it more than me, I don't always want to act as the messenger. And maybe there aren't anymore people with an issue with these and other issues - just Chrisy and I. It's hard to say, and I can't fault the devs of VP for glossing over our concerns at all because of that. It's definitely an issue I encounter in my own works, too - an issue from long ago suddenly gets brought up years down the line and its like - why now, I've already gotten used to things as they are smh But it is what it is, and that's partly why I'm not pushing for change.

I wish I could participate more and across broader areas, and I wish civ communities didn't tend to self-insulate, but I'm just too pressed for time to keep track of every concern - both my own and of the users of my mods or of the vanilla game - and civ communities do tend to keep to themselves, so it often seems like if I don't raise concerns myself no one else will - and that's sort of what's happened here and elsewhere. Makes communal growth difficult. But its ultimately just the way things are I guess, and all I can do is not put up too much of a fight when I do complain.

 

[maxf]

The Gold is instead given to the Capital, or well more likely the Holy City, and as such is subject to its modifiers; because Tithe needed buffing of course.

OK, so it is another significant undocumented change. Maybe it should, finally, make a complete list of all changes?

 

[vyyt]

I am pretty sure the move-and-shoot-1-tile-and-then-move-again within the same turn for the ranged naval units is a CBP thing, not CP.

I remember the discussion about the siege units losing the setup before firing promotion, it was changed because the new way is more AI friendly. But even as a die hard VP/CBP fan, I think it should not be part of CP - if it is possible - maybe it is not and it is an integral part of the better AI. Actually, I am the part of the minority who misses the need of setting up even in VP/CBO, I quite liked it.

Then there are the triremes traversing ocean if they end up in a coast tile by the end of the turn. Is it a big deal? If yes, then I also agree it should not be part of CP if possible. But again, only the people of the DLL nation know the inner workings of the improved AI. Maybe these things are not easily toggled on/off as we think.

 

[vyyt]

@JFD, I remember you were working on a custom tutorial popup system in the past. Have you made any progress in this field? I think it would be a great way to inform the new players of not only VP, but also CP about the new mechanics and especially changes from the vanilla. It would surely be a great way to diminish the confusion. I can imagine new players thinking that the missing setup button for the siege units is a bug/bad install.

 

[JFD]

Yeah, sorry that's been taking so long. When I last left it before my hiatus from V modding, I had to redo how follow-up questions were handled. This is all I need to do now. Since I plan on being back on Civ V for a while (Civ VI just routinely turns me away, and the new XP has put the final nail in the coffin ), it's in my sights again - I just need to get through a few other obligations viz. Civ V modding first. Definitely will get done though, since I plan on releasing the next public JFDLC with it.

I definitely prefer having to setup - it adds weight to Siege Units; makes them more distinctive and feel appropriately more powerful than a standard unit - more thought, and more action, needs to go into using them. I don't mind the naval unit change (that is, being able to move into ocean - I was mistaken about the ranged part) as much though on principle it still seems too far beyond CP's scope. But this is ofc without knowing the inner workings, as you say. If there's a way forward, it's out of my hands, so if it's just a matter of that's the way it goes, well, that's the way it goes

 

[vyyt]

Great to have you back in the Civ5 realm, @JFD! And, I am very excited about the tutorial system. By saying this, I am not pushing you or anything

Yeah, I feel the same about the siege units, but I was surprised how many people hated the setting up thing as something redundant or even difficult to account for when calculating the tiles/turns to attack. But I think the main reason was making it easier for AI. I haven't played a non-VP Civ for ages, so I don't even remember how the AI had dealt with the siege units before. But if it really makes the AI better and is explained well to the new players (by your tutorial system, hint, hint ), then I believe it should stay in CP - ideally with a possibility to toggle it on/off.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I don't mind the naval unit change (that is, being able to move into ocean - I was mistaken about the ranged part) as much though on principle it still seems too far beyond CP's scope. But this is ofc without knowing the inner workings, as you say. If there's a way forward, it's out of my hands, so if it's just a matter of that's the way it goes, well, that's the way it goes

Since I was there when those changes were implemented, I've read part of the dicussion on "should this be included into CP or not".
The point is that there isn't any active develloper dedicated to CP-only, so CP has to be a "sub-part" of VP, including for the AI stuff.
And those two changes changes (naval mouvement and siege setup) are kind of central to the combat-AI, so maintaining an AI with those feature and an AI without was a no-go.
In fact, those two changes were not added to VP for balance reasons. They were added because it was considered the easiest way to significantly improve the AI.

Though a lot of the AI was recoded and refactored since then, so maybe the situation is different now and a toggle could be added without having the AI incompetent with early naval units and siege units.

 

[Gazebo]

Quite the deluge here. I'll see what I can address. Welcome back in whatever capacity you're coming back, JFD.

Some other undocumented changes to the CP include Siege Units no longer needing to setup but instead moving more slowly in enemy borders, and similarly there's something to do with Naval Units in ocean though I can't remember off-hand. It's hard to see how necessary these changes are but I guess it comes down to improving the AI? Would be nice to have the option to toggle off, however, as they diminish the human player's experience for some - though IMO these changes, since they actually impact direct gameplay, should be opt-in not opt-out.

I'm always hesitant to recommend CP to people not interested in VP who conflate the two, because the biggest sell is the tagline 'it only improves AI and expands modding functionality.' Such changes don't necessarily make that false but idk. Because of JFDLC's dependency on CP, creeping changes that have tangible impacts upon the gameplay also make me rather anxious.

1.) Set-up to fire: this was removed almost a year ago (if not longer) because it was a major bottleneck for the tactical AI. Ilteroi redid the entire tactical AI method and we found over and over again that siege units were failing to work correctly because the AI had a difficult time properly predicting the movement needs and setup woes of siege units. Taking it out, and replacing with the current model, was the best stop-gap we could accomplish for the AI and achieve the balance/AI performance we wanted. It may not be the answer you want, but it's the truth.

QoL in and of itself is subjective, so should not be the basis for features like this.

Something like the Naval Ranged Units is quite radical, because its a marked shift from the player's tangible experience in vanilla - from actual gamplay experience of interacting with one's own units. Does this change account for unique Naval Ranged Units?

Anyway, I meant game defines rather than user settings or toggle options. Improvement to AI or not, these two examples are undeniably departures from the vanilla game's actionable experience - its not something that operates behind the scenes, or beyond the human player's faculties - and that's not something that should be mandatory in the CP. There's always been much more weight to launching a siege attack thanks to having to use a separate button to launch it and, for me at least, the idea of that being removed is just diminishing - not a QoL at all.

It is a bit late in the development of the CP to be raising these issues but to claim that that is a good reason not to make adjustments seems fallacious.

My time and energy is stretched thin as it is though, and as much as I would prefer the CP to regress (or rather shift to CBP) or make optional (even if opt out) changes like this, I'm not about to push the issue - especially since I don't know of anything more than the Naval and Siege changes, and if there were more, its not really feasible to discuss everything myself. So I'm not arguing for something to be done, just giving my voice to the issue, because I do think those in this subforum have a tendency to get tunnel vision - unable to see what those who want nothing more than the CP wish for. Sure, you may think it improves the QoL of the game, but for some others, myself included, when you start to take away the player's tangible vanilla experience for the sake of the AI, its diminishing instead.

The rule for the CP was, and is, minimal gameplay impact. Minimal. Not 'zero,' but minimal. These changes were the minimum required to achieve the tactical AI desired by the CP team.I consider these two changes, fairly small in the grand scheme of vanilla civ's 1000s of mechanics, to be acceptable.

The Gold is instead given to the Capital, or well more likely the Holy City, and as such is subject to its modifiers; because Tithe needed buffing of course.

And yeah, I should probably say these things in a more appropriate place; but given my previous reception when I've raised my issues, and given that my attempts to convey my issues through Jifford (under the impression that he'd be heard better) have been brushed aside I don't see why I should bother hoping that the CP will ever be considered independently of the CBP.

That's an absurd claim. Every time someone has reported a CBO feature accidentally making it into CP I've checked into and, if a bug, corrected the bug. So, instead of moaning about 'ohh they've changed the game the CP is a lie!,' just post your report to github and we'll take a look.

Re: the gold going to the capital/holy city, this was a bugfix - the vanilla DLL incorrectly assigned some belief yields to the player level, and others to the city level (i.e. tithe yield for gold to the player level, tithe yield for culture to the city level). I corrected and standardized this so that all the tables work correctly for modders (as the belief tables only worked exactly as Firaxis used them in G&K, so modders couldn't get consistent results from changes).

G

 

[JFD]

Thanks for the breakdown. If after my grievances you still consider them necessary changes, then that's absolutely agreeable to me, especially with your explaination. Sorry for causing any trouble D: But glad I understand the situation better.

 

[azum4roll]

Another undocumented change: Amphibious is the CBO version, which makes Songhai much better than it is in vanilla.

 

[hokath]

This is where you report bugs azum4roll: https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues