Could this be added to AND?

[Dancing Hoskuld]

The game option over-rides the settings page. I should make those options disappear with that gameoption though...

And the tech trading/brokering ones also.

 

[Afforess]

Those actually change the gameoptions. I figured there was no sense in re-inventing the wheel, and moved them into the BUG Settings.

 

[Sonereal]

Alright, I have a working prototype...

Critics... get ready...

Spoiler :

So what is missing?

*whistles*

In any case, that's some mighty good work there. It's simple, clean, and self-explanatory which, in other words, makes it perfect. Well, almost perfect. I have a bad feeling there'll be a thread or two that starts with "Why can't I trade my vassal?"

 

[DRJ]

Great work, Afforess!!! trading vassals... lol --- for peace give me civ "xy" :-D

Regarding the screenie: am I just tired or did I really not see the "trade contacts" option?
I think trade contacts could be made available by the tech "trade".

 

[Afforess]

I hadn't got to them, but Embassies and Contacts are on there too. Everything is.

 

[Arakhor]

Wow! I'm very impressed

The fewer the options at start-up, the better, in my opinion

 

[Killtech]

ahm... Can Trade Contacts? or is that already in implied in some other point?

but otherwise looks great!

 

[os79]

Talking about Diplo options:
Why don't you add an overarching option in RoMSettings or even move them to Diplo tab for No Units Trading above the option already there called No Military Units Trading. That should stop me from continually deleting UnitInfos.xml and unitschema.xml files from Advanced Diplo folder because I want NO! unit trading, not even workers.

 

[Afforess]

Talking about Diplo options:
Why don't you add an overarching option in RoMSettings or even move them to Diplo tab for No Units Trading above the option already there called No Military Units Trading. That should stop me from continually deleting UnitInfos.xml and unitschema.xml files from Advanced Diplo folder because I want NO! unit trading, not even workers.

Wait... Why can't you just toggle both the worker and military trading to off? I've removed the military trading one from the RoM screen (since it is now here).

I forgot to mention, those files you keep deleting have secondary purposes as well. You damage the effects of Right of Passage, as Missionaries & Execs aren't normally marked as "Only Defensive" by RoM.

 

[os79]

Wait... Why can't you just toggle both the worker and military trading to off? I've removed the military trading one from the RoM screen (since it is now here).

I forgot to mention, those files you keep deleting have secondary purposes as well. You damage the effects of Right of Passage, as Missionaries & Execs aren't normally marked as "Only Defensive" by RoM.

Because "No Worker Trading" wasn't in RoMSettings .

And thanks for warning about these two files.

 

[happyant]

Hi guys, I don't know if its been discussed but I've spent quite a bit of time going through various mods and havn't seen it.
If workers were charged a cost to build an improvement it would add some (further) realism on a number of fronts. For example;
The cost to build could be 2 times what the production will be from the tile with the improvement built. So if a mine is to be built which (with slavery) will product 3 hammer one food would cost the city closest 6 hammer two food to build. That would mean if the city does not have the resources to build an improvement it cant be built.
You could maybe make a sliding scale similar to the model which reduces yields from forest chops as they move away from a city radius, so the further from the city it is, the more it costs. That would make you think carefully about where you put you production and make looting more realistic as would cost to rebuild the improvement. You should also be able to rebuild an improvement to the previous level if you can pay the cost. So you can rebuild a town if it is destroyed in a war but it will cost you 6 food and 14 coin (or maybe even more in later eras) I think it is more realistic than building a cottage and waiting around for growth when you have had a heap of people put out of home.

Just a thought(s) , any merit?!

 

[patrioticparado]

Hi guys, I don't know if its been discussed but I've spent quite a bit of time going through various mods and havn't seen it.
If workers were charged a cost to build an improvement it would add some (further) realism on a number of fronts. For example;
The cost to build could be 2 times w.......

Someone's gonna say it, I might as well pretend I have a little authority. This doesn't belong here, you should edit it, remove your text and start a new thread.

Going back to the diplomacy discussion. I like most of what was said here. Diplomacy is too easy as it is, but some of the things said here would make it tedious. I like the idea of having to establish an embassy but be careful that the maintenance cost isn't too high. I also want to throw out there that explorers should be able to conduct any of the diplomacy that is finally implemented. Columbus and other explorers were not just discovering new land and routes, but also acting as representatives of their funding nations (maybe scouts too, but I could definitely see the reason to leave them out).
Lets keep the ideas flowing

 

[Killtech]

so.. what you want is that vision is only enough to be able to contact someone (no matter if you have visual of a unit or borders) but to establish a embassy you must send an explorer/scout to the other civs city, yes? somewhat similar to a diplomat unit? unless it doesn't become more complicated than that it's ok.

 

[Afforess]

A poster in a different forum had a very interesting (and better, IMHO) idea how to solve the exploration issue:

My simple idea is this. If a unit does not have as many movement points as the space it is entering demands, then it cannot enter it. It becomes impassable. For instance, currently a scout with a movement of 1 can enter a forest (which requires 2 movement) if he hasn't moved anywhere else that turn. This would now be impossible.

This means the unit has to get an upgrade to increase movement, either in battle, or from a goody hut, or techs need to be researched to enable faster moving units. The idea is to slow down early exploration and I think this simple change will acheive this.

 

[Arakhor]

Now that sounds fun. Would the early techs be tweaked to enable fast movement or would the basic scouts be extremely limited in speed?

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

Wow! It's nice to actually get your ideas listened to.

 

[Afforess]

Wow! It's nice to actually get your ideas listened to.

Welcome to AND Forums!

Now that sounds fun. Would the early techs be tweaked to enable fast movement or would the basic scouts be extremely limited in speed?

Scouts would be limited. It would make early travel hard, and later explorers that much more valuable. I think certain units, like workers should be exempted (or how else would forests be cut down?).

 

[Killtech]

sounds good. though i still prefer the lose contact if not in sight idea. could add quite a lot of interesting aspects to the early game. if both ideas could be realized this would be best option.

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

Perhaps with special units like workers, instead there is a chance that it can enter a space that requires more movement points, the chance percentage being a ratio of the units movement capability to the space movement points.

For instance, if a worker with one movement point wants to move into a forest, for each attempt he has a 1/2 chance of succeeding. I believe this is how Alpha Centauri worked with movement.

Could an XML flag be used which, when set for a unit such as a worker, indicates that unit uses this percentage chance forumula instead of the space being impassable? This could then also be experimented with other units eg: Unique units for some civs - they might have a special scout unit etc.

Now, this gives an even further idea. Could a unit promotion for a unit change some spaces from being impassable to a chance of entering a square instead of or an alternative to or a step towards straight increased movement?

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

sounds good. though i still prefer the lose contact if not in sight idea. could add quite a lot of interesting aspects to the early game. if both ideas could be realized this would be best option.

I believe in MOO1, you lost diplomatic contact if a race was no longer within your range. I like that idea too.