We can rename ingame name of Modern era to Atomic era.
There is no reason why internally it can't be modern era, while in game it would be named atomic era.
I changed displayed name from Modern to Atomic era in svn.
OK, awesome!
Also we always used TECH_FUTURE_TECH as last repeatable tech, just that in game name is different, no idea why you thought we dropped that.
Ingame name it was String Analysis for 10 years until future part of tech tree expanded, so this tech got different ingame name of Simulation Analysis
Well you say you don't know why I would have thought that and then in the next statement go on to explain why I did. Good to know that it has always been <Type>TECH_FUTURE_TECH</Type>. I'm getting to the point in modding where a lot of information stored in my head is starting to ooze out of cracks forming due to the amount of time this project has been underway. Which answers to:
I guess you have forgotten the why(s) and wherefore(s).
I brought it up again because Whisperr had a rant about it and I still agree with her on that and can't recall why we would not have all agreed. I vaguely recall Hydro being the primary proponent to argue that the term 'Modernity' means something to do with the 70s/80s/90s according to other games, but I'm just not buying this argument. Modern means now in any context and NOW is not the Modern Age so it's really quite silly to continue calling it the Modern Age.
Iirc Mastery because of how it is set up was one of them.
hmm... interesting. I can see some causes for conflict there. Nothing we couldn't overcome with a little rerouting where the actual problem spots lie. I think we'd need to have another tag in the gamespeed increments to say 'this' is the point where we stop the game if this option is on. I can see how the same logic would mess with the time victory condition in the same way, and how it's likely it's really the same problem at the root since Mastery is a timed victory game really - it just takes a lot more conditions into consideration in the way it comes to a conclusion about the victor.
But like so many other mods "parts" from which we borrowed when this mod was simpler/young it may not be optimal now.
Neither time nor mastery apply well with the mod as it is right now. It's not because some players don't have hundreds of times more patience than you personally do but because the play experience doesn't really balance very well in the late game yet, for many reasons. It's clear we've only really scratched the surface and tons of game elements are so out of whack in the later game that even if the computer system allows you to play that far, the enjoyability starts to die due to numerous factors. Whisperr is finally reaching late Industrial and already a lot of those factors are showing up like open wounds in our design. It's going to take a long time to address it all. Without multimaps, (or maps far too small to enjoy in the first eras that are ultimately incredibly huge to accomodate the space layers later) the late late end of the game becomes so unprepared for player experience that I cannot expect even Blitz speed players to want to play to the end of the time victory condition at this point.
This is one reason why I can see a need for providing this option. Nothing to do with the original stated desire to avoid anything sci-fi, but to allow for the game to have a classical completion point that can actually be reached with what we have for those who value a game's end and don't intend to find it with something like a conquest or cultural victory condition.
Personally, I would like the Space Race Victory condition to function as it was intended. Not sure if you have noticed but it's the only Victory Condition I have set in these series of Test games on Long and Normal GS that I report on. It's a long term goal (if the mod will ever allow it) to see IF the Space ship Modules can still be built and the Ship actually can get Launched. But...… game turn times may not allow it to happen Unless I can maybe get it done in a Blitz Game.
You could always research the XML directly. I'm not really sure where we are with that either. It almost seems to me like it should perhaps operate differently on a no-future game option than it would on a non-no-future game option. Either way I think if we're going to complete the conversion of it that Hydro had in mind, which may not even be quite right according to the end of our current tree and might need some further rethinking still, I believe we're going to need to do some serious graphic and screen work to pull it off. Maybe it should just stay as it was originally and be an early out victory condition that plays into the end whole calculation of a mastery victory but doesn't have any real direct effect on the later end of the game whether it was done or not (or we could come up with some benefit like circumnavigation gives to ships if it was reached first.)
By the way, I think on the long game you had going, you're looking at a temporary turn length problem that is based on the wars taking place. It should get better. A good look through worldbuilder might also help. We've seen some barbarian cities in the past amass some hundreds upon hundreds of units in cities and thus cause rather impressive slowdowns every turn to process all those unit AIs. I quick WB zap on such a problem spot might lubricate the game turn times a lot.
When I did a recent step through of a lot of code in process trying to find your last bug, I started to get a much better picture of how multimaps is supposed to work and began to see that I'm not as far out from understanding it enough to make it happen as I've been thinking I am. Now that I feel a bit more capable of that, I've begun to consider priorities again. Even if we did make it top priority, I feel there are still a lot of things that should be placed ahead of that project, because what's the point of opening it up if the game is going to suck getting there and then suck once it's there. If it's not a good game up to and throughout that stage of things, what's the point of developing out that stage of things except to attract back all those players who've been waiting for that only to complain about the (DEEP) problems we have in other ways.
So largely I plan to stay the course. I know that a lot of AI work is needed still and some of the problems I have there are part of the reasons for your slowdown. I KNOW there is a lot of property control and vision AI unit glut and it's slowing down the game a lot and I also know WHY it's there but it's a very complex problem to solve - too many are being trained that then never have a way to get to the place that asked for them and that place continues to ask for them and it's an endless spam that results and that creates massive game delays. This is one of a number of very difficult issues to solve. And then there are many game inconsistencies in buildings and the way they are designed and imbalances from them from the foundation of our mod basis and radiating throughout every layer of what takes place. Things like incredible gluts of research being introduced, not nearly enough production, overwhelming amounts of culture. And then there are unit imbalances, which are glaring but not the worst aspect of things, though the upgrade chains are fairly whack in many places, largely due to a constantly shifting tech tree. There is so much to be done... so much. I'm glad you're working on civics. They need a lot of work as well. Wish I could offer more distinct feedback on that.
As we found out. However the text name can be something else though it probably should be Future Tech because it would make more sense if you have differing end eras.
Exactly. Sooner or later it's always a problem to use a "relative" name (relative to our own time, that is) combined with "absolute" names (like Industrial).![[civ1]](/images/smilies/civ1.gif "Civ39 [civ1]")
.
