Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[AdrienIer]

Sorry, but there is something I disagree on about the civics : mercantilism provokes great depressions instead of free market. A good thing about normal RFC was that it did not consider free market or state property as the "ultimate" (last line) economical civic. It stayed neutral (although it did put state property on line 4 and free market on line 3, but that was mainly because you get communism after economics).
Now we have free market on the last line (meaning that it can be forced upon you) with no disadvantages (and great depressions were a good feature of RFC), and that is very debatable. You have done some good changes with the civics, and it's less dull to choose the civics now, but there might be some improvement to be done on the economic ones. Personally, I don't consider Serfdom as an economical policy, but as a social (society) policy. It could be replacing aristocracy, and the +50% general emergence can be transfered to vassalage. But then we need another economical civic.
Environmentalism was a nice try, but something less polemical might be better. Regulated markets maybe ?

PS : I have started a game with America to see if everything went right, and everything was good. You said earlier that you were worried about the Dutch colonization, well they build Niew Amsterdam and the north cost of SAm (Venezuela and co.) so it seems all right. No S African colony though.

 

[KaiserBenjamin]

Ran another American start, looks pretty good. Catholicism at like 30%, Protestantism at like 14%. Running another one to see if this is standard.

How is it currently decided which missionary America starts with, Protestant or Catholic? Is it based on England's religion or the most popular religion or is it always Catholic?

Another start. Catholicism is about 30%, Protestantism close to that. Received a Python error upon spawn. Attaching screenshot.

*EDIT* I should clarify that all of these are 3000 BC starts on the normal speed.

 

[Leoreth]

Sorry, but there is something I disagree on about the civics :

No need to apologize. I wasn't sure about many of your points myself, but have found arguments that persuaded me to do it as it's now. They're not set in stone, though. Just let me outline my reasoning:

mercantilism provokes great depressions instead of free market.

This is not intended, I just didn't think of changing it.

A good thing about normal RFC was that it did not consider free market or state property as the "ultimate" (last line) economical civic. It stayed neutral (although it did put state property on line 4 and free market on line 3, but that was mainly because you get communism after economics).

I would disagree on that. State Property is very powerful, especially in vanilla BtS, where you can get big empires. The stability boost is also very useful, compared to the fact that Free Market can trigger depressions.
But ideally, the game seems to be biased towards Environmentalism (which don't even is an economy civic in the first place). It even has Al Gore as internet icon (thankfully removed in RFC).

Now we have free market on the last line (meaning that it can be forced upon you)

I'll call history on this one. International organizations, especially the WTO, in fact have forced many countries into opening their markets. Often to the benefit of the first world nations.
Another reason: I've viewed the last row of civics as those with the greatest personal freedom (Free Speech, Free Religion, Universal Suffrage ...). Putting State Property in line with these civics doesn't look good to me.

Personally, I don't consider Serfdom as an economical policy, but as a social (society) policy. It could be replacing aristocracy, and the +50% general emergence can be transfered to vassalage.

I'm not happy with it being in that category either. But "Serfdom" is also no Society model (a society can have serfdom, but it cannot be defined by its presence). Transferring its effect to Aristocracy is possible (great general emergence is no must as a civic option), but we'd still need a replacement economy civic.

Regulated markets maybe ?

If you can find unique effects for it, maybe. It still seems too close to what can be modelled by Socialism+Free Market to me, though.

PS : I have started a game with America to see if everything went right, and everything was good. You said earlier that you were worried about the Dutch colonization, well they build Niew Amsterdam and the north cost of SAm (Venezuela and co.) so it seems all right. No S African colony though.

That's good to hear. I've also seen them doing better in the last versions of the mod.

How is it currently decided which missionary America starts with, Protestant or Catholic? Is it based on England's religion or the most popular religion or is it always Catholic?

I left Rhye's code for America's missionary unchanged. That means, they will get a missionary of the world's most prominent religion.
That could be a problem in theory, because now that Christianity is split, Islam could surpass each of them alone, although Catholicism+Protestantism have more followers than Islam. America getting a Muslim missionary in this case would seem wrong to me.

Another start. Catholicism is about 30%, Protestantism close to that. Received a Python error upon spawn. Attaching screenshot.

Nice to see how Protestantism's percentage varies.

I've also had that error and am unable to see what's wrong with the Stability file. Will take another look at it ...

 

[AdrienIer]

Tried a second start, and everything is fine, again. It's now 2/2 settlements of Madagascar by France, and that's a good thing. Second time also that Arabia goes very far in Africa, settling Ethiopia, even up to the Maghrib. But they can't get too far because, at some point, the European powers claim those lands.
Last point, the starts are 600 AD, monarch, normal speed.

Edit : I didn't see your reply, so I'll answer to it now. I agree that Serfdom is no society model, but IMO it fits better there than in Economy. I also agree that state property must not be in the last row, but free market has too great a disadvantage to be in that place (the great depressions are really strong). Something needs to be done here.

Edit 2 : In this second game the religion percentages are : 20% for catholicism, protestantism, Islam and Buddhism. Taoism and Hinduism only have 3-4%. In the first one, they were : Catholicism, 29%, protestantism, 19%, Buddhism 12%, Taoism, 14%, Islam, 10%, Hinduism, 2%

 

[Cethegus]

I'll call history on this one. International organizations, especially the WTO, in fact have forced many countries into opening their markets. Often to the benefit of the first world nations.
Another reason: I've viewed the last row of civics as those with the greatest personal freedom (Free Speech, Free Religion, Universal Suffrage ...). Putting State Property in line with these civics doesn't look good to me.

Well said.

I'm not happy with it being in that category either. But "Serfdom" is also no Society model (a society can have serfdom, but it cannot be defined by its presence). Transferring its effect to Aristocracy is possible (great general emergence is no must as a civic option), but we'd still need a replacement economy civic.

And I thought Serfdom as an early economical civic was a good idea, even if a bit odd. I agree that Environmentalism can be compromised with an early economical civic. Considering how late it comes in the game, it's even less used than Police State (which is made obsolete by both Monarchy AND Democracy by that point) and it serves the player only if you crank up the population with corporations. Why not just let cities grow as big as they naturally can and run a "lesser" choice economy? Distance cost modifier, free specialist and free trade routes are all better than just extra health.

Back to the choice of early economy civic... maybe you could give Manorialism a try as well? Then again, there might not be more sense in +1 from Farm and Plantation than there was in Serfdom. It might be useful with RFCE-style draft allowed with Vassalage/Serfdom but I'm not sure if the way these civics develop should take such a direction.

@ AdrienIer: the factor that pinpoints which economy civic allows the Great Depression is not located in the same file with the civics' effects so it could merely be an overlook.

If you can find unique effects for it, maybe. It still seems too close to what can be modelled by Socialism+Free Market to me, though.

Agreed. The thought of regulated markets is close enough to left-wing politics to be considered Socialism, in my eyes. Maybe move Great Depression from Economy civics to Capitalism? That's where greed always leads, and +2 from Town is seriously broken.

 

[Leoreth]

Edit : I didn't see your reply, so I'll answer to it now. I agree that Serfdom is no society model, but IMO it fits better there than in Economy. I also agree that state property must not be in the last row, but free market has too great a disadvantage to be in that place (the great depressions are really strong). Something needs to be done here.

What would you say about softening its effects? Or implement the possibility of a "Economic Boom" with reverse effects? Free Market is more prone to ups and downs, but whom am I telling this these days?

And I thought Serfdom as an early economical civic was a good idea, even if a bit odd. I agree that Environmentalism can be compromised with an early economical civic. Considering how late it comes in the game, it's even less used than Police State (which is made obsolete by both Monarchy AND Democracy by that point) and it serves the player only if you crank up the population with corporations. Why not just let cities grow as big as they naturally can and run a "lesser" choice economy? Distance cost modifier, free specialist and free trade routes are all better than just extra health.

That was also my line of thoughts.

Back to the choice of early economy civic... maybe you could give Manorialism a try as well? Then again, there might not be more sense in +1 :civ4commerce: from Farm and Plantation than there was in Serfdom. It might be useful with RFCE-style draft allowed with Vassalage/Serfdom but I'm not sure if the way these civics develop should take such a direction.

I had that effect in mind for Aristocracy. It turned out that it confused the AI to always build farms over cottages (ignoring the cottage's ability to grow).

Agreed. The thought of regulated markets is close enough to left-wing politics to be considered Socialism, in my eyes. Maybe move Great Depression from Economy civics to Capitalism? That's where greed always leads, and +2 :civ4gold: from Town is seriously broken.

It's simply the Free Speech effect But you're right, Capitalism seems to be the real reason for economic fluctuations, not merely having a free market.

 

[Cethegus]

I had that effect in mind for Aristocracy. It turned out that it confused the AI to always build farms over cottages (ignoring the cottage's ability to grow).

Then go around the bend and have Manorialism allow draft? Lol.

It's simply the Free Speech effect But you're right, Capitalism seems to be the real reason for economic fluctuations, not merely having a free market.

Who's to say Free Speech wasn't broken in the first place? :[ I don't know how other people play Civ4, but whenever I'm not short in food or production, I focus on commerce. If you're occupying Paris and you surround it with seven Towns, run Capitalism and maybe throw Absolutism in there somewhere, it makes the city so over the top rich that it takes the fun out of the tech race. At least for me.
Having the risk of great depression is enough of a reverse benefit for me. "With great risk comes great reward."

 

[KaiserBenjamin]

Found some more errors. Screenshot attached.

 

[Baldyr]

Found some more errors. Screenshot attached.

That looks like a typo to me. (I think there should be a capital S in there.)

 

[Leoreth]

Then go around the bend and have Manorialism allow draft? Lol.

Considered, but found to be too powerful. I did consider "Build units using food", but I'm not sure if it that would end counterproductive (cities don't grow).

Who's to say Free Speech wasn't broken in the first place? :[ I don't know how other people play Civ4, but whenever I'm not short in food or production, I focus on commerce. If you're occupying Paris and you surround it with seven Towns, run Capitalism and maybe throw Absolutism in there somewhere, it makes the city so over the top rich that it takes the fun out of the tech race. At least for me.
Having the risk of great depression is enough of a reverse benefit for me. "With great risk comes great reward."

It definitely is broken, but I can at least blame it on Firaxis
I think I'll go by your idea. What should prevent the spread of a Depression, then? Still State Property?

That looks like a typo to me. (I think there should be a capital S in there.)

Sometimes it simply needs the additional eye. Thanks ^^

I still don't get why this is a runtime error. The code in question is:

			if (iCivic1 == 8): #Representation
				if (pPlayer.getCurrentEra() >= 4):	#Bonus in industrial or later
					iNewBaseStability += 3

It never should get to the point to use the variable iNewBaseStability after the American spawn ... since they are still in the Renaissance era. Maybe you could enlighten me?

Typo corrected. Capitalism now causes great depressions.
I just noticed that the code already was meant to cause it while in Free Market. The problem is that Civilopedia of course can't detect Python features automatically, so Rhye made it so that the third civic in the fourth columns always has the tag "causes great depressions". I'd love to correct it, but I don't know how he has achieved that.

 

[Cethegus]

I think I'll go by your idea. What should prevent the spread of a Depression, then? Still State Property?

I'm not expert on the matter so I don't know. What system was Greece running before getting into this mess, if it's allowed to discuss that much modern politics? Socialist Free Market? Capitalist State Property?

I don't know if two civics can be conjoined in this manner, but I would consider the Communist alternative, Socialist State Property, ideal. Running Capitalism and State Property at the same time to eliminate the risk of Great Depression would combine two of the strongest civics in the game to make up for each other's weaknesses. Not fair.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd interpret it as a Socialist Free Market. Capitalist State Property would rather be for systems like China's (state capitalism).

Political and economical opinions differ strongly if increased state spending decreases or increases (damn Simpsons ... I was close to writing "embiggens" here) the repercussions of a recession (aside from the fact that it depends on the particular reasons).
Although I could imagine that states that control their economies are not as much dependent on the development in the financial sector. But I'm by no way an economics expert, either.

I don't know if two civics can be conjoined in this manner, but I would consider the Communist alternative, Socialist State Property, ideal. Running Capitalism and State Property at the same time to eliminate the risk of Great Depression would combine two of the strongest civics in the game to make up for each other's weaknesses. No chance.

That's a good argument (by the way: seems like China is currently exploiting the game rules, using the most powerful civics at the same time ). I read another thread here recently where it was proposed to swap the effects of Mercantilism and State Property in regards to depression mitigation. Which makes sense to me, because when you isolate your economy from foreign trade, how should their crisis affect you?

 

[Cethegus]

Argh, China and Greece are blowing punch-holes to my argument.

Maybe we can go with State Property ignoring Great Depression, even when running Capitalism. They won't be able to use corporations anyway, which should serve as #1 reason for modern imperialism.

 

[Leoreth]

Given how easily China managed to get through the crisis, I think that's true

Although one could make a point about them being in a golden age currently.

Edit: crossediting drives me crazy

They won't be able to use corporations anyway, which should serve as #1 reason for modern imperialism.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

 

[Cethegus]

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

Imperialism as it is in Civ4 in the years after 1900 or so. In the colonial era, you would try to grab exotic resources to get the initial +1/ and maybe some bonus from buildings, but with corporations you can stack 20 resources of the same kind and still get the 0.50 bonus from each one, given that the appropriate corporation is within the city. "Endless growth", if you may.

Sorry for the way I put it.

 

[Leoreth]

Ah, now I understand

Okay, back to programming:
My next goal is to implement dynamic names for great persons according to their civ. The optimal solution for this would be to incorporate Gaius Octavius' mod into mine, but since his download link is broken and he doesn't seem to be active anymore, I had to cannibalize the Python files from his "WW2 in the Pacific" scenario.

The problem is: I can't seem to "connect" them to the rest of the code. I know I have to import and call its functions somewhere, but all my tries didn't work. Can someone help me with this?

(files in question are appended)

 

[Larxon]

I still have my problem. And also, what kind of notepad program? It won't open in Adobe. And, when I unzip it with WinRAR, it says the system cannot find the path specified, so I should use WinZip, right?

 

[Baldyr]

I still don't get why this is a runtime error.

What is the actual error message? Do you have a trackback?

The problem is: I can't seem to "connect" them to the rest of the code. I know I have to import and call its functions somewhere, but all my tries didn't work. Can someone help me with this?

It seems straight forward enough, but I'd add the relevant code from CvCivSpecificGreatPeopleModEventManager.py to CvRFCEventHandler.py instead. This is what code needs to be carried over:

import CivSpecificGreatPeopleModNameUtils

Anywhere before the class definition.

		eventManager.addEventHandler("greatPersonBorn", self.onGreatPersonBorn)

Under the def __init__ line.

	def onGreatPersonBorn(self, argsList):
		'Great Person Born'
		pUnit, iPlayer, pCity = argsList
		player = PyPlayer(iPlayer)
		infoUnit = pUnit.getUnitClassType()
		
		# Check if we should even show the popup:
		if pUnit.isNone() or pCity.isNone():
			return
		
		if(len(pUnit.getNameNoDesc()) == 0): # Rename units with no names - important to avoid confusion with event log
			
			iCivilizationType = player.player.getCivilizationType()
			# Pass the civilization and unit type along to the renamer
			pUnit.setName(CivSpecificGreatPeopleModNameUtils.generateCivilizationName(iCivilizationType, infoUnit))

After the definition for __init__.

This line could be the culprit if it doesn't work:

		if(len(pUnit.getNameNoDesc()) == 0): # Rename units with no names - important to avoid confusion with event log

This could be specific to the WW2 mod you've cannibalized, as it seems that the GP mod is used to fill in gaps where there are no names available in the game. Remove this line and decrease the indentation for the block of code following it.

Other than that, I'm not sure if the event "onGreatPersonBorn" is activated in RFC. That could be a DLL or a XML thing, I'm not sure.

Good luck!

 

[Sikandar]

None of the customized leaders work in my game.

I tried a game as Phoenicia and Hannibal was my leader upon spawning.

Same thing with the others.

 

[Leoreth]

I still have my problem. And also, what kind of notepad program? It won't open in Adobe. And, when I unzip it with WinRAR, it says the system cannot find the path specified, so I should use WinZip, right?

The mod is compressed in RAR format, so WinRAR should be right. I'd really like to help you, but I have no idea what's going wrong. Let's reiterate your necessary steps:

1. You download the file from the linked download mirror.
2. After it's been downloaded, either a dialogue will open that asks you to unzip it with WinRAR, or you have to doubleclick the archive file to do so.
3. In WinRAR, a folder named "RFC Dawn of Civilization" should be visible. Click on "extract to" and choose the path ".../Firaxis Games/Sid Meier's Civilization 4/Beyond the Sword/Mods/", where "..." is the folder you installed Civ4 in.
4. You should be able to start the modmod either by starting BtS and choosing Advanced -> Load Mod -> RFC Dawn of Civilization or doubleclicking on one of the scenarios in ".../Mods/RFC Dawn of Civilization/Public Maps/".

Please take no offence if these points are trivial to you and you've already followed these steps. I just want to exclude any possible error that can happen there.

None of the customized leaders work in my game.

I tried a game as Phoenicia and Hannibal was my leader upon spawning.

Same thing with the others.

Do they only not work for the civ you're playing, or also for the AI civs? Because the former is intentional. It's part of Rhye's implementation that you don't always start with your historical first leader (Germany starts with Bismarck, England with Victoria, for example). I was not able to change that just via the leader change code, so I let it stay. I do intend to have the player start with his early leader in later versions, but that's not of high priority to me, as players don't get to see their leader anyway.

@Baldyr:
You're a fountain of good advice. I'm trying to follow your guide now.

What is the actual error message? Do you have a trackback?

It's the error KaiserBenjamin posted.