Dawn of Civilization General Discussion

Oh. I would use the Wat Phra Kaew for that.
 
Apparrently part of the portuguese coast is not a part of the iberian region regarding Carthages UHV.

Is that intended?
 
Which part?
 
I guess he means the 4 tiles in Portugal. The pink area is what counts towards the UHV. (The grey area technically too, but that is water)

The UHV uses the Spanish normal area, which doesn't include Portugal.

Spoiler :
 

Attachments

  • Civ4ScreenShot0020.JPG
    Civ4ScreenShot0020.JPG
    383.6 KB · Views: 556
I have a very good lead now. It impacts both specialist commerce and great people rate and may be related to culture levels. I am surprised that this is in evidence because culture level based changes to those factors have already been removed already in the XML so it should all come out to 0, but the code itself is still around in the DLL and there may be some side effects I did not consider. I have improved logging for the next attempt to find the issue.
Or maybe not. Currently I am zeroing in on great people rate inaccuracies which seem to be related to the Mount Athos effect. Not sure if there is any relation to the commerce error.
 
Last edited:
the truth come out...
 
But seriously, I hope I can make a 1.16.3 release soon for essentially all the code changes plus their fixes.
 
Out of curiosity, what's the reason for the change to Russia's leaderheads? Alexander I seems quite close in time to Catherine (who is already fairly temporally close to Peter).
 
Alexander I is more significant than II and had good art available.
 
To be honest I hadn't even realized we had Alexander II. I just remember Nicholas II. I think we had Alexander II but using Nicholas II art?

This got me reading a bit into who were the best Russian tsars, besides Catherine and Peter, and it looks like it's quite controversial, actually. I wouldn't know which to pick even if we had good art for all.
 
We originally had Nicholas II because that's what the LH was for, but I always considered that a bad pick because by all accounts, he is not a good Russian emperor. He was only added to have an industrial era leader for Russia and that was the only with LH art. Some time later I did some reading on that period in Russia and realised that the art could conceivably also be used for a young Alexander II (with the beard and all). Is Alexander II the best Russian emperor from the 1800s? I don't know, but he fit the art and has some points in his favour, even though he is generally underrated in the public consciousness.

I decided to switch to Alexander I because he actually had dedicated art that looks good. Is Alexander I a better emperor than Alexander II? Arguments could be made, but he did win the Napoleonic Wars and besides Britain was the only constant undefeated opponent of France during that time period, and he enlarged Russia by Finland and Poland. He is certainly more famous. Now I admit that it makes the time period covered by Russian leaders more crunched, but the condition in game does not change. Alexander I is clearly an Industrial era leader (although early Industrial era), by the same reason that Napoleon is.

Lastly, Alexander II was (at least for some time) oddly liberal for a Russian monarch, he is generally considered a "road not taken" in Russian history especially compared to Nicholas II's reactionary mindset. This makes him worthy of being highlighted but also means that he may not be the best leader to represent Russia of the time period, which was generally very conservative. Alexander II's favourite civic was Individualism even, which I changed to Manorialism for Alexander I. I may even make further changes to get the personality closer to Alexander I, maybe with Despotism as the fave civic, favouring Farm improvements, and a diplo AI with warmonger respect and the willingness to fight long wars. This could even help with some of Russia's issues regarding game balance.

In summary, Alexander I wins over Alexander II both art and significance wise and his personality might be a better fit for a more general representation of Russia at the time.
 
No.
 
In the new espionage xp code, you changed iDifficulty to iSuccessChance. I assume you mean the succes chance of the spy. But IIRC it is the interception chance, not the chance of succeeding the mission.

Spoiler :
Code:
//SuperSpies: TSHEEP start
bool CvUnit::awardSpyExperience(TeamTypes eTargetTeam, EspionageMissionTypes eMission)
{
    int iExperience = GC.getEspionageMissionInfo(eMission).getBaseExperience();
    int iSuccessChance = (getSpyInterceptPercent(eTargetTeam) * (100 + GC.getEspionageMissionInfo(eMission).getDifficultyMod())) / 100;

    if (iSuccessChance >= 90)
    {
        iExperience /= 2;
    }
    else if (iSuccessChance < 80)
    {
        int iModifier = (80 - iSuccessChance) / 10; // +1 at <70, +3 at <50, +7 at <10
        iExperience *= (100 + iModifier * 50);
    }

    if (iExperience < 100)
    {
        return false;
    }

    iExperience /= 100;

    log(CvWString::format(L"Spy experience for mission %s: success chance was %d, experience is %d", GC.getEspionageMissionInfo(eMission).getText(), iSuccessChance, iExperience));

    changeExperience(iExperience);
    testPromotionReady();

    GET_PLAYER(getOwner()).changeEspionageExperience(iExperience);

    return true;
}
//SuperSpies: TSHEEP End
 
Those are the same, but I've noticed since then that's it's the failure probability.
 
Top Bottom