Extra Traits for C2C
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Because there's no difference in the <Description> Tag between the two versions is there? New text references for the new names need to be made and then referred to in the Developing Leader traits description tags. Honestly, they all need real editing and further development. At the moment, the first, and only, stages are still a bit too strong for the Developing Leaders environment and could use a massive tweaking leading into development on the additional tiers.
But just working out the new names would be a good start.
But just working out the new names would be a good start.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah, I just made carbon copies of the originals so they could be later tweaked. You do understand how to make and utilize text references I assume?
I redid all the duplicates couple of days ago coz they were all old and since been applying any changes to both. I get the gist of what they are yeah. Keep in mind what i've done with the traits & leaderheads etc is the only modding/coding i've done b4. Copy paste is definitely my best friend 
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Let me know if you have more questions or comments then. Did you ever get iBombardDefense to work? Or the Production Modifier to Inquisitors?
@sgtslick/Thunderbrd:
I'm planning on implementing (before V30, but not in the next few weeks) 2nd and 3rd level traits for my Traits, which currently don't have analogs in the base trait set. This means that if there aren't at least dummy XML for that by then in the core that I'll have to make my traits the base ones and the 'core' ones will be the replacements as far as the code is concerned.
NOTE: this does NOT mean that my trait levels will override the core ones in any way. It will only mean that you will need to add Expression System code for your XML that will enable it when my option isn't on (as opposed to the way it works now, where it is only on when my option is on).
I'm planning on implementing (before V30, but not in the next few weeks) 2nd and 3rd level traits for my Traits, which currently don't have analogs in the base trait set. This means that if there aren't at least dummy XML for that by then in the core that I'll have to make my traits the base ones and the 'core' ones will be the replacements as far as the code is concerned.
NOTE: this does NOT mean that my trait levels will override the core ones in any way. It will only mean that you will need to add Expression System code for your XML that will enable it when my option isn't on (as opposed to the way it works now, where it is only on when my option is on).
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Well... the proper way, or should I say, the courteous way, if needbe, would be to make shell traits for the core first and build the alternative set onto them.
But hopefully, SgtSlick can come up with something for those before then.
But hopefully, SgtSlick can come up with something for those before then.
So what do I need to do? Do I just for example have:
Aggressive: (for non-developing leader option as is)
Slightly Aggressive: Where the Aggressive1 is currently listed.
Moderately Aggressive: Listed below where the 1's currently end.
Very Aggressive: Where Moderately will end.
Extremely Aggressive: Where Very ends.
So the traitinfos.xml with in turn have 5 listings of each trait?
<iLinePriority>1</iLinePriority> Is needed for the developing leader ones? Both need the Impure 1.
Thats it yeah?
"New text references for the new names need to be made and then referred to in the Developing Leader traits description tags." Where do I do this?
Will I change it to:
<Type>TRAIT_SLIGHTLY_FINANCIAL</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_TRAIT_SLIGHTLY_FINANCIAL</Description>
<ShortDescription>TXT_KEY_TRAIT_SLIGHTLY_FINANCIAL_SHORT</ShortDescription>
Is that all you mean? Will you then change it to be recognised by the schema or whatever?
If I get instructions you shouldn't need to do that Is612.
@thunderbrd The iBombardDefense didn't work, I tried it a few times and haven't tried since. Didn't end up putting the inquisitor in for now. I used a bunch of your other tags that in play currently. Next time you play have a look. They aren't radically different or anything but I have improved them.
Oh one other thing, do you think 4 teirs for each trait is the right number? You don't think 3? Will you adjust the culture requirement in developing to suit something like 10-11 upgrades per game?
Aggressive: (for non-developing leader option as is)
Slightly Aggressive: Where the Aggressive1 is currently listed.
Moderately Aggressive: Listed below where the 1's currently end.
Very Aggressive: Where Moderately will end.
Extremely Aggressive: Where Very ends.
So the traitinfos.xml with in turn have 5 listings of each trait?
<iLinePriority>1</iLinePriority> Is needed for the developing leader ones? Both need the Impure 1.
Thats it yeah?
"New text references for the new names need to be made and then referred to in the Developing Leader traits description tags." Where do I do this?
Will I change it to:
<Type>TRAIT_SLIGHTLY_FINANCIAL</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_TRAIT_SLIGHTLY_FINANCIAL</Description>
<ShortDescription>TXT_KEY_TRAIT_SLIGHTLY_FINANCIAL_SHORT</ShortDescription>
Is that all you mean? Will you then change it to be recognised by the schema or whatever?
If I get instructions you shouldn't need to do that Is612.
@thunderbrd The iBombardDefense didn't work, I tried it a few times and haven't tried since. Didn't end up putting the inquisitor in for now. I used a bunch of your other tags that in play currently. Next time you play have a look. They aren't radically different or anything but I have improved them.
Oh one other thing, do you think 4 teirs for each trait is the right number? You don't think 3? Will you adjust the culture requirement in developing to suit something like 10-11 upgrades per game?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Ok. Well consider the following points:
1) In the <Type> tag, it's probably easiest to call them with the number as in: TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE1, TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE2, TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE3 and TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE4.
2) Then the Description text reference calls them Slightly Aggressive, Moderately Aggressive etc...
3) PromotionLine needs to all have the same reference in a given set, so all Aggressives would have PROMOTIONLINE_AGGRESSIVE.
4) iLinePriorities need to count up. Thus, the non-Developing Leader version is 0, the first step such as Slightly Aggressive would be iLinePriority 1, then the next step, Moderately Aggressive would be iLinePriority 2 and so on. The NEGATIVE traits count the opposite way, -1 on the first step into Developing Leader versions and continuing into -2, then -3 etc...
5) As for text files, I'd start one of my own if I were you, just to keep them all where you can easily find them. Copy any existing text file (you can use mine) in the Assets/XML/Text folder, rename it, then go in and remove all text reference entries except the first. Then overwrite the texts within the language brackets (make sure to put all the non-english ones in english so that the translators know to address those) with what you want the reference to say in the game.
You can probably find the text references already established for a new trait, like Progressist, somewhere in our text files for an example of the wording. Just having a correctly formatted text reference located under ANY file name but within the Text Folder is enough for the game to connect the tag call in the trait to the text reference. It's a very clever and simple mechanism.
6) The Impure has two tags, ImpurePromotions and ImpureProperties. If a positive trait has a negative promotion or a negative trait has a positive promotion then the impure promotions tag should be set to 1, otherwise 0. If a positive trait has a negative influence from property manipulators, or a negative trait has a positive influence from property manipulators, the impure properties tag should be set to 1, otherwise 0.
7) For now, I suggest just keeping the flavors set to the same as the line's predecessors, just duplicate them as is to the new tiers. I'll give them a better smoothing over afterwards.
Any more questions?
1) In the <Type> tag, it's probably easiest to call them with the number as in: TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE1, TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE2, TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE3 and TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE4.
2) Then the Description text reference calls them Slightly Aggressive, Moderately Aggressive etc...
3) PromotionLine needs to all have the same reference in a given set, so all Aggressives would have PROMOTIONLINE_AGGRESSIVE.
4) iLinePriorities need to count up. Thus, the non-Developing Leader version is 0, the first step such as Slightly Aggressive would be iLinePriority 1, then the next step, Moderately Aggressive would be iLinePriority 2 and so on. The NEGATIVE traits count the opposite way, -1 on the first step into Developing Leader versions and continuing into -2, then -3 etc...
5) As for text files, I'd start one of my own if I were you, just to keep them all where you can easily find them. Copy any existing text file (you can use mine) in the Assets/XML/Text folder, rename it, then go in and remove all text reference entries except the first. Then overwrite the texts within the language brackets (make sure to put all the non-english ones in english so that the translators know to address those) with what you want the reference to say in the game.
You can probably find the text references already established for a new trait, like Progressist, somewhere in our text files for an example of the wording. Just having a correctly formatted text reference located under ANY file name but within the Text Folder is enough for the game to connect the tag call in the trait to the text reference. It's a very clever and simple mechanism.
6) The Impure has two tags, ImpurePromotions and ImpureProperties. If a positive trait has a negative promotion or a negative trait has a positive promotion then the impure promotions tag should be set to 1, otherwise 0. If a positive trait has a negative influence from property manipulators, or a negative trait has a positive influence from property manipulators, the impure properties tag should be set to 1, otherwise 0.
7) For now, I suggest just keeping the flavors set to the same as the line's predecessors, just duplicate them as is to the new tiers. I'll give them a better smoothing over afterwards.
Any more questions?
Think I added this after you read it:
@thunderbrd The iBombardDefense didn't work, I tried it a few times and haven't tried since. Didn't end up putting the inquisitor in for now. I used a bunch of your other tags that in play currently. Next time you play have a look. They aren't radically different or anything but I have improved them.
Oh one other thing, do you think 4 teirs for each trait is the right number? You don't think 3? Will you adjust the culture requirement in developing to suit something like 10-11 upgrades per game?
@thunderbrd The iBombardDefense didn't work, I tried it a few times and haven't tried since. Didn't end up putting the inquisitor in for now. I used a bunch of your other tags that in play currently. Next time you play have a look. They aren't radically different or anything but I have improved them.
Oh one other thing, do you think 4 teirs for each trait is the right number? You don't think 3? Will you adjust the culture requirement in developing to suit something like 10-11 upgrades per game?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I actually wouldn't mind 5 layers but 4 seems to be the appropriate point for now. I'm liking the rate of achievement in play so far.
I'll take a further look into those two tags for you then. Might take me a bit to get to that but it will be fairly soon.
I'll take a further look into those two tags for you then. Might take me a bit to get to that but it will be fairly soon.
I haven't played with DL really, currently how many cultural trait advances will you get over a 'typical' game?
It's scaled to map size if I remember currectly, yeah?
I think with the negative traits, they should advance automatically at certain cultural levels if they are to have a tier system too. I also think 'removing negative trait' should not be an option. So if the negative trait has 4 tiers, the negative trait will automatically advance around every 3 or 4 cultural level ups.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I'm not sure yet how many you'd get over a 'typical' game. But I saw a late stage game and there were leaders with 20+ levels. 5 lvls would mean at the end of the game you're pretty much able to have fully developed about 4 traits if you've done VERY well with culture. There IS an absolute limit from what I can tell as we have a limit to how much culture can actually accumulate thanks to programming limitations on the size of a referable number. I don't think the max level is much above 20. And in the one game I saw where the limit was reached (and caused a bug) the tech tree was nearly completed.
It scales to game speed but not YET mapsize (it will by the time this is finished.)
As with negative traits, I'm not taking out the ability to remove them with a positive one, but I do plan to add the ability to remove a positive with a negative one. As for extending them, I'm thinking if its possible, they shouldn't really get much 'worse' as they go... if anything, more tame, even possibly growing into something more positive as the leader adapts to working with his flaw more effectively, twisting its weaknesses into greater strength. There does need to be cause to want to further negative trait lines.
We'll just need to be VERY gradual with negative traits and they wouldn't need as many tiers... maybe 2 or 3 at most would be necessary.
Also... the tier system really does require the use of tech prereq assignments to hold leaders back from developing ONLY one line at a time. I'd take each line, and find appropriate places to give tech prereqs for levels 2 and up that give a fair distribution throughout the tech tree.
It scales to game speed but not YET mapsize (it will by the time this is finished.)
As with negative traits, I'm not taking out the ability to remove them with a positive one, but I do plan to add the ability to remove a positive with a negative one. As for extending them, I'm thinking if its possible, they shouldn't really get much 'worse' as they go... if anything, more tame, even possibly growing into something more positive as the leader adapts to working with his flaw more effectively, twisting its weaknesses into greater strength. There does need to be cause to want to further negative trait lines.
We'll just need to be VERY gradual with negative traits and they wouldn't need as many tiers... maybe 2 or 3 at most would be necessary.
Also... the tier system really does require the use of tech prereq assignments to hold leaders back from developing ONLY one line at a time. I'd take each line, and find appropriate places to give tech prereqs for levels 2 and up that give a fair distribution throughout the tech tree.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
I dont know what the heck is going on here, but you need to make this a modmod, and the option for this in the option area needs to be taken OUT.
I must insist on this now.
Taking away the advantage (including the man hours) of the original core is not acceptable in anyway share or form.
From what i am seeing so far, ls612, your stuff isnt THAT much different than the original anyways. A few things here and there, thats what a MODMOD is for!! IMHO
So pls lets get rid of that option in the game start and make this a modmod for anyone that wants to use it, thx. Just like other modmod(ers) do.
This is what i said from the beginning anyways. . . . SO
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
In your image, we have a good example of the math because the Spiritual rate and the Humanitarian rate is perfectly discounted by the Civics. So what we have is a 55% modifier alone from Idealistic.
Your base GP pts per rnd add up to 8 without any modifiers. 3 from specialists and 5 from buildings. Neat.
So 55% is so close to 50% that any result here is likely to be the same as a 50% modifier without going into analysis of the fractions of one and the rounding effect (I believe it usually rounds down but I'm still a little unclear on this.)
So 50% is half again. 50% of 8 is 4. 8 + 4 = 12. (not 10) So the modifier appears to be calculating perfectly.
However, are you saying that in the xml, the modifier is supposed to be 25%? What about the other two showing there? Are they supposed to have NO modifier? (25+30 = 55) That looks a bit suspicious. Looks like I might need to investigate where the extra 30% is coming from that's being applied to all trait GP modifiers. hmm...
Your base GP pts per rnd add up to 8 without any modifiers. 3 from specialists and 5 from buildings. Neat.
So 55% is so close to 50% that any result here is likely to be the same as a 50% modifier without going into analysis of the fractions of one and the rounding effect (I believe it usually rounds down but I'm still a little unclear on this.)
So 50% is half again. 50% of 8 is 4. 8 + 4 = 12. (not 10) So the modifier appears to be calculating perfectly.
However, are you saying that in the xml, the modifier is supposed to be 25%? What about the other two showing there? Are they supposed to have NO modifier? (25+30 = 55) That looks a bit suspicious. Looks like I might need to investigate where the extra 30% is coming from that's being applied to all trait GP modifiers. hmm...
@Tbrd and sgtslick:
My plan is to have 3 levels of Traits for Developing Leaderheads. I also intend to have the naming conventions be Trait I, Trait II, and Trait III, just like Promotions. If you want to add shell XML for them feel free, but as an FYI I'm going to be making mine near the end of the month.
My plan is to have 3 levels of Traits for Developing Leaderheads. I also intend to have the naming conventions be Trait I, Trait II, and Trait III, just like Promotions. If you want to add shell XML for them feel free, but as an FYI I'm going to be making mine near the end of the month.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
hmm... that's all the more odd. It's as if Spiritual's 30% is being added to all three somehow. Which may be possible if its only a display issue which I now suspect it to be. Again... I'll take a look at that soon, possibly this weekend. I've a feeling its not actually tallying up this way but since we don't have a reference there to an absolute amount that isn't derived from the text manager tally its hard to get a comparison to the actual amount being added every round. I suppose some math could derive the actual amount by dividing the amount to go till the next GP by the amount of turns it states is still required...
Similar threads
