You don't need machinery to make the storage type ice house like the Yakhchals the ancient Persians made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakhchal
Existing Buildings Discussion
- Thread starter Vokarya
- Start date
- Status
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
I don't know then. 
MaXimillionZero
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 205
Masonry would probably be more appropriate.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Masonry and cold winter or mountains st start with. Palace or gold in vicinity optional.
Invention (or Steam Power) was when the limit on where it could be built should be lifted.
Invention (or Steam Power) was when the limit on where it could be built should be lifted.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
How do you code for that? Meaning how do you have a placement limit and then remove the limit at a tech?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Shouldn't AIAndy's new coding allow for that? Might be a bit complex but should be doable, no?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
@Hydro:
I strongly suggest adjusting the training style buildings a bit. We have a good idea going with the way Asatru temples and such increase the training costs on units the extra xp benefits go towards. For purposes of game balance (especially in light of some upcoming changes), I recommend that we add about 5% build costs per bonus XP on unitclass types being granted xp bonuses by intentional training methods such as barracks.
The balance concept should be sound, the longer you train your units, the more xp they get, and vice versa. Soon, this will be important to observe I think. This does give a nation a benefit for NOT building such military training buildings... opting for cheap quantity over expensive quality, but in general, the ai shouldn't see the difference, still giving preference to constructing the training buildings rather than not.
I strongly suggest adjusting the training style buildings a bit. We have a good idea going with the way Asatru temples and such increase the training costs on units the extra xp benefits go towards. For purposes of game balance (especially in light of some upcoming changes), I recommend that we add about 5% build costs per bonus XP on unitclass types being granted xp bonuses by intentional training methods such as barracks.
The balance concept should be sound, the longer you train your units, the more xp they get, and vice versa. Soon, this will be important to observe I think. This does give a nation a benefit for NOT building such military training buildings... opting for cheap quantity over expensive quality, but in general, the ai shouldn't see the difference, still giving preference to constructing the training buildings rather than not.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
If I understand you right you want the XP giving buildings such as Barracks and Garrisons to be more expensive to build? Or do you want units to take longer to train?
I think he wants the second. More experienced units taking longer to train.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Exactly, longer to train. Thus if a Riding unit gains +2XP from, say, the Barracks, then the Barracks should also make that unit take 10% longer to train.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Won't it cause some weird stuff like slower military production on a Naval Academy will cause land units to train slower even though the sea units get XP?
Docks give production bonus to boats only so the opposite (production malus for boats only) should work too, right?
hmm. I see the (real life) reasoning here, but I'm not so sure in gameplay terms. f I had a bunch of such buildings (your military center typically tries to get a set after all) then slowdown would be substantial. If I need units fast for an emergency I'd then want a way to buuild the unpromoted variant and not have the penalty (which again is real-life reasonable - just curtail their training). This would requier an extra mechanic to accomodate (a new hurry category maybe that allows a part-produced unit to be hurried at its current training state once you have accumulated at least the base unit production worth of hammers).
Not sure it's worth the effort. Would require AI work also.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Well, I'm only talking about those modifiers that manipulate xps for combat classes only. This is because with additional combat classes on a singular unit, they can double up and get a substantial amount of xp and while this is balanced by the fact that so many anti-combat class promotions and abilities would affect them cumulatively as well, it seems rational to make those few units that have multiple combat classes that would be gaining xp from your buildings take a bit longer to build. This is one conceived balance factor that can help there.
Additionally, I was thinking that there are already two ways to address your concerns there Koshling: 1) drafting - pops out units without training at all, and 2) you CAN destroy those buildings if you're really desperate. What you mentioned was an interesting option too which might be a good idea to introduce eventually anyhow. (as a toggled option it could work in nicely with those yes/no proclamations page options Hydro and I were discussing earlier...)
But since we're only talking about specific unitclass xp bonuses (not generic xp bonuses such as are earned by military instructors in the city and such, or bonuses for land or sea units) I don't think the penalty will amount to all that much, and if its too extreme, perhaps something less than 5% could be considered.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@Thunderbrd
How about this. You find all the buildings you think need changing and then we work on them on an individual basis. For instance the Arena gives unit XP however I do not think that it would slow down things because an arena is not a formal military training building.
How about this. You find all the buildings you think need changing and then we work on them on an individual basis. For instance the Arena gives unit XP however I do not think that it would slow down things because an arena is not a formal military training building.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Exactly. So we're just talking about the barracks and such where they target only specific unitclasses. I suppose the easiest way to find them all would be to play through a bit and make some notes as to which ones to update. I just wanted to suggest it as a heads up. If you run across such buildings in your travels, an update here and there could be helpful. I haven't touched building files much.
Would you ever not build these buildings because of this change? If not then it doesn't effect any game decision so how does it help gameplay? If you would, then how do you propose to modify the AI to take account of it? This is a game, not a sim.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Good questions.
I would think that there might be times when an AI wouldn't build them due to the adjustment, but not myself as a player. The AI classically favors quantity over quality as it is, quite happy to build troops in any city it can regardless of the kind of troops those cities end up producing.
As a player with my particular playstyle, I value the quality of my troops over just about every other consideration. For me, even tech and population growth will often take a backseat to xp bonuses. If I'm that hard off for troops that somehow quality means more than quantity then I'm buying them or slaving them and not waiting regardless of the cost.
A change doesn't have to necessarily affect decisions, but in some cases, just the consequences of those decisions. Many decisions in Civ are neither right nor wrong, just a judgment call and this would certainly follow suit.
I believe there would already be an inherited ability for the ai to evaluate the adjustment where the ai would consider that there is a slight delay imposed on their troop builds by building this. I would hope, without immediately reviewing the code, that they would still 'feel', as I, a human player feels, that making their troops a bit more expensive in exchange for XP benefit is more than worth it. This is to the point that if the AI doesn't take it into account and operates as normal, then that, too, is just fine.
What it SHOULD adjust a bit, and I'm thinking that it would be again an inherited consideration into the current coding, is the way it evaluates the desirability of building some units over others for particular roles. I believe it already considers the build costs of units vs their benefits no? We may need to teach it there's a benefit to troops that, as a result of this adjustment, cost a bit more to build, but since the verdict is still out on whether such troops would be 'better due to receiving double ups on xp bonuses' or 'worse due to extra vulnerabilities', especially with an adjustment of this nature (meaning the buildings adding production costs to the units) tending to weight that consideration towards 'better', than its hard to quite say yet if the ai should really have much of a weight adjustment improvement over what it already evaluates.
Without a herculean effort in coding, the AI will never consider everything to quite the depth players can. I'd say human personality would play more of a role in how this change would affect their play decisions and perhaps the same could be built into the AI decision making. In fact, this highlights the fact that many ai determinations are not made currently in light of various personality based strategies, but could eventually be made to. If the leaderheads defined themselves as a Quality Troop Priority, a Quantity Troop Priority, or a balance in between, it could be taken into consideration when looking at how to interact with xp sources and any consequences they may deliver as well.
This reminds me... I've been considering a project down the road that I'd most certainly want your help with (so we're talking WAAAAAAY down the road) that makes it possible for players to play against ai personalities that represent the various members of the mod team that have been playing long enough to be able to proceduralize their game decisions in all areas.
I would think that there might be times when an AI wouldn't build them due to the adjustment, but not myself as a player. The AI classically favors quantity over quality as it is, quite happy to build troops in any city it can regardless of the kind of troops those cities end up producing.
As a player with my particular playstyle, I value the quality of my troops over just about every other consideration. For me, even tech and population growth will often take a backseat to xp bonuses. If I'm that hard off for troops that somehow quality means more than quantity then I'm buying them or slaving them and not waiting regardless of the cost.
A change doesn't have to necessarily affect decisions, but in some cases, just the consequences of those decisions. Many decisions in Civ are neither right nor wrong, just a judgment call and this would certainly follow suit.
I believe there would already be an inherited ability for the ai to evaluate the adjustment where the ai would consider that there is a slight delay imposed on their troop builds by building this. I would hope, without immediately reviewing the code, that they would still 'feel', as I, a human player feels, that making their troops a bit more expensive in exchange for XP benefit is more than worth it. This is to the point that if the AI doesn't take it into account and operates as normal, then that, too, is just fine.
What it SHOULD adjust a bit, and I'm thinking that it would be again an inherited consideration into the current coding, is the way it evaluates the desirability of building some units over others for particular roles. I believe it already considers the build costs of units vs their benefits no? We may need to teach it there's a benefit to troops that, as a result of this adjustment, cost a bit more to build, but since the verdict is still out on whether such troops would be 'better due to receiving double ups on xp bonuses' or 'worse due to extra vulnerabilities', especially with an adjustment of this nature (meaning the buildings adding production costs to the units) tending to weight that consideration towards 'better', than its hard to quite say yet if the ai should really have much of a weight adjustment improvement over what it already evaluates.
Without a herculean effort in coding, the AI will never consider everything to quite the depth players can. I'd say human personality would play more of a role in how this change would affect their play decisions and perhaps the same could be built into the AI decision making. In fact, this highlights the fact that many ai determinations are not made currently in light of various personality based strategies, but could eventually be made to. If the leaderheads defined themselves as a Quality Troop Priority, a Quantity Troop Priority, or a balance in between, it could be taken into consideration when looking at how to interact with xp sources and any consequences they may deliver as well.
This reminds me... I've been considering a project down the road that I'd most certainly want your help with (so we're talking WAAAAAAY down the road) that makes it possible for players to play against ai personalities that represent the various members of the mod team that have been playing long enough to be able to proceduralize their game decisions in all areas.
Not since V23. Instead of just building the units it wants in any old city it now puts them out for tender and has the most appropriate city build them (which takes account of promotions it will be created with)
Not really. It onl understands such modifier as making he building more or less valuable (less in this case), so it will simply mean it wont build it as quickly as it did before if it has any effect. It won't have a differential effect depending on the wider context the city is in.
- Status
Similar threads
