Extra Traits for C2C

ls612 is correct. Be careful with it though... its a very strong value if it gets too high.

Any of these others needing any clarification? (They're surely needing some thorough testing ;) Just to make sure they are all behaving entirely as desired.)

Given how hard it is to destroy city defenses as it is now I'd be wary of using it at all.
 
I felt it was applicable, if used in extremely low doses (like maybe 15% for the PriorityLine 0 version and 5% steps in the tiers) for the Defensive Trait that so many feel is not all that great a trait in the first place. But I do warn to be very cautious with it, yes.

Perhaps we could open it up a bit if you wanted to apply your diminishing return method to that value ls612. Could be a really good idea on this one. Also... one thing I'm not sure of... is there an opposing ability on this coming from the bombard units themselves?

Either way, the more cities can be made to be capable of defending themselves the better imo. Cities always fall in one round to my forces unless they are hugely stacked with defenders which usually only earns them one extra round or two. Defenses pretty much are meaningless to me in most cases as I come prepared. If those defensive stacks I face bring some very strong flanking units they MAY be able to knock down my ability to devastate their city defenses within a round. (But if they are a coastal city, they've gotta have one hell of a navy to keep it from happening from the sea!)
 
Given how hard it is to destroy city defenses as it is now I'd be wary of using it at all.

There is a CAP im pretty sure anyway, I remember reading in the A_New_Dawn_GlobalDefines.xml or somewhere like this. I think it caps at 70% or something, so you can't reduce it beyond this. But yeah, I know what you mean, particularly with the problems the AI has had in the past with actually following through and attacking cities and all the work koshling has done in this area. I would hate to mess it up.

@Thunderbrd

<ElementType name="DomainFreeExperience" content="eltOnly">
<ElementType name="DomainProductionModifier" content="eltOnly">
These sound good.

<ElementType name="TechResearchModifier" content="eltOnly">
<element type="TechType"/>
<element type="iModifier"/>
Whats this one do exactly? Is it for specific technologies? Whats a 'techtype'?

ElementType name="bCivicOptionNoUpkeep" content="textOnly" dt:type="boolean"/>
ElementType name="iUnitProductionModifier" content="textOnly" dt:type="int"/>
I like how your making things more specific.

I don't know if im reading the schema right, like i'm not sure what stuff is for traits, and what stuff you feel is 'ready to go'.
 
Under the <ElementType name = "TraitInfos" line or something like that, you get the list of tags that are nested into traits themselves (and thus the order those tags should appear) each listed out as <element type= rather than <ElementType name=, which is a declaration. Basically you declare a tag with ElementType name, and then you apply it with element type under the appropriate declaration of the class object (like traits in general).

See if you can figure out what I'm saying there as you look further at the schema.

Yes TechResearchModifier can make a trait adjust the rate of research the civ gets when researching specified technologies. Thus, just as an example, you can make the Agricultural trait research the TECH_AGRICULTURE faster and the TECH_MINING slower if you wish. It's just a percentage modifier to the research volume when researching the denoted tech. <TechTypes> enables you to select the tech type that modifier applies to.

Thus, the proper XML syntax would be:
Code:
<TechResearchModifiers>
	<TechResearchModifier>
		<TechType>TECH_AGRICULTURE</TechType>
		<iModifier>50</iModifier>
	</TechResearchModifier>
	<TechResearchModifier>
		<TechType>TECH_MINING</TechType>
		<iModifier>-50</iModifier>
	</TechResearchModifier>
</TechResearchModifiers>
You may notice that under the declaration for TechResearchModifiers is the application of the tag TechResearchModifier. See how in the above example, this makes sense? Then you look at the declaration for TechResearchModifier, and you can see that TechType and iModifier are applied as nested within TechResearchModifier. They are Declared elsewhere (and only ONCE anywhere in the schema!) but applied within TechResearchModifier. This leads to the xml info file syntax as expressed above.

ElementType name="bCivicOptionNoUpkeep" content="textOnly" dt:type="boolean"/>
Did you realize we had this all along and its never been used? Probably not since it hadn't been applied anywhere and I actually migrated it here from the civic option categories infos.

ElementType name="iUnitProductionModifier" content="textOnly" dt:type="int"/>
This is another migration from what was previously the unit infos tag ProductionTraits. I've also got an experience and production modifier coming in for Combat Class once I can get past my hangup here.

Oh, and as I usually try to go about it this way, every tag you currently see should be 'ready to go' though those that have gone unused so far are still in a watch for bug status.
 
Also wanted to add, you are always so thorough in your replies thunderbrd (no matter who they are too), it's really helpful. Sometimes its a bit hard to reply to all that you have said coz its like trying to write an essay lol, but I do read them, as i'm sure does everyone else - and its appreciated.
 
Also wanted to add, you are always so thorough in your replies thunderbrd (no matter who they are too), it's really helpful. Sometimes its a bit hard to reply to all that you have said coz its like trying to write an essay lol, but I do read them, as i'm sure does everyone else - and its appreciated.

I know how hard it must be to follow some of what I say so perhaps I'm a bit redundant in trying to say the same thing in a couple different ways because I fear I won't be very well understood. I still read that above post and wonder how much of it really helps or if any of it is lost on ya.

And while you may express some appreciation for my attempts to be thorough, I'm sure in my overly verbose communication style, I can often lose the focus of many who attempt to read my posts ;) It's tough to find the right balance and my personality just tends to have a harder time editing DOWN text... I know that's not the norm. lol
 
Hey thunderbrd, I added a couple of new tags today and I wanted to give anti-clerical +100% modifier when building inquisitors, i tried both;
Spoiler :

<SpecialUnitProductionModifierTypes>
<SpecialUnitProductionModifierType>
<SpecialUnitType>UNIT_INQUISITOR</SpecialUnitType>
<iSpecialUnitProductionModifier>100</iSpecialUnitProductionModifier>
</SpecialUnitProductionModifierType>
</SpecialUnitProductionModifierTypes>

And the normal UnitProductionModifierTypes one but it doesn't work, what are the special units?
I'm thinking its just something to do with the inquisitor tag but im not sure, is UNIT_INQUISITOR sufficient? The unitclass for them is INQUISITOR.
 
SpecialUnitTypes are a way to classify units, like missionaries and corporate execs mostly. Use of the tag referring to the SpecialUnitType reference will influence the production rate of all such units.

You need to use the UnitProductionModifierTypes tag if you want to adjust a given unit. But you say its not working? I can take a look into that...

Now... is it not showing up in the traits display, not showing up in the city displays as if the modifier were functioning, or is it simply a matter of it shows but doesn't calculate out properly?

Best case test scenario would be if you could generate a savegame where a city of a leader with that trait is currently training an Inquisitor. In the meantime, I'll take a look at the code itself to see if something looks fishy.
 
Well if I had a different unit it works fine, but the INQUISITOR doesn't show up and causes all the traits to become unclickable *edit* in civilopedia.
 
Ah... ok. Perhaps that's because the Inquisitor is also option dependant somehow. hmm... Check out the inquisitor's definition and see if it has a unique specialunit definition. You might be able to safely use that but I'm not sure.

@Koshling: apparently I haven't insulated that tag against the possibility that the unit may not exist in the game? How does this happen exactly? And what should I do to fix it?
 
Apparently iBombardDefense is not defined in the schema, an error popup is saying when I used it in the xml and tested it. I know it is listed in the schema though because I referenced it when I was looking at where it fits in the order.. strange.

@Koshling: apparently I haven't insulated that tag against the possibility that the unit may not exist in the game? How does this happen exactly? And what should I do to fix it?

When I was mucking around with the unit domain modifier tag to test it out I wrongly defined some stuff and here's how it looked in the civilopedia. It was for progressist but its changed and fixed now to be just some individual hitech units but thought it was funny after you mentioning this. ;)

Spoiler :
KMdV8NI.jpg
 
From what I can see in my schema, you must've misspelled iBombardDefense?

As for the other thing you mentioned up there, references are basically all just numbers so if you mis-refer something it ends up going into potential random number status which can have rather unforeseeable consequences.
 

Looking at the pedia there is there anyways you can add a "1" to the ones you have name that way in the pedia also, otherwise it just doesn't look good to have 2 names the same, "I'm Just Sayin' "
 
Looking at the pedia there is there anyways you can add a "1" to the ones you have name that way in the pedia also, otherwise it just doesn't look good to have 2 names the same, "I'm Just Sayin' "

Even if the 'developing leader' versions were simply another color or font, I think this would be an improvement indeed. How come it doesn't show them as Philosophical, Philosophical1 (like how its named in the .xml)? When we get the teir system going this will definately be needed I reckon.
Maybe even something like this

Philosophical
&#8735; Philosophical
Politician
&#8735; Politician
Progessist
&#8735; Progessist
 
Looking at the pedia there is there anyways you can add a "1" to the ones you have name that way in the pedia also, otherwise it just doesn't look good to have 2 names the same, "I'm Just Sayin' "

Even if the 'developing leader' versions were simply another color or font, I think this would be an improvement indeed. How come it doesn't show them as Philosophical, Philosophical1 (like how its named in the .xml)? When we get the teir system going this will definately be needed I reckon.
Maybe even something like this

Philosophical
&#8735; Philosophical
Politician
&#8735; Politician
Progessist
&#8735; Progessist
Yeah, simply putting a 1 afterwards on the developing leader traits was the original plan. Now I'm thinking we could add an adverb in front instead. 'Slightly' = Lvl 1, 'Somewhat' = Lvl 2, 'Very' = Lvl 3, 'Extremely' = Lvl 4, and 'Incredibly' = Lvl 5 or something to that extent. Might make us review the way the Traits are named so they fit with the above method better. But an Extremely Aggressive leader or a leader with Extremely Aggressive policies would be more fearsome than a Aggressive IV leader or a leader with Aggressive IV policies. ;)
 
But an Extremely Aggressive leader or a leader with Extremely Aggressive policies would be more fearsome than a Aggressive IV leader or a leader with Aggressive IV policies. ;)

that actually does sound alot better.
 
Back
Top Bottom