Extra Traits for C2C

[Thunderbrd]

Why do Traits from Developing Leader have to have Bonus and Malus for Distance and Number of cities when Civics already covers this.

I'm not going to comment on how traits that we have now are developed because I'm not really in tune with the methods being used in either case very well. But that said, I personally felt that we needed more options (and also more traits). Each tag that I've included I included due to a vision of what I had for it to potentially represent. I have not fully developed that out yet and have turned over these tools to the other modders to determine for themselves what vision they could find for them or to leave them alone if they wish. We're exploring different visions and differing ideas and I don't think that's a bad thing. Look at how wildly civics have shifted and it seems we're starting to find better balance points and improved design from this testing of a lot of differing concepts there. It's all part of a creative process... takes time to find the right balances.

But my personal view on why the Distance and Number of Cities maintenance was included here was because, for one reason, I felt, specifically, that the Organized trait had fallen to new lows in comparison to other traits in terms of benefit and it could no longer be effective enough by only helping with Civic maintenance, a relatively small portion of maintenance as it is. Additionally, some traits, like Expansive, would be more capable of delivering their game focus benefit (in the case of Expansive, this would mean enabling faster and wider sandbox style growth) with proper use of these tags, while not giving them any benefit for Civic maintenance. Seafaring and Nomadic could benefit from Distance to City due to their focus on travel. My point is, there were some initial visions there and from there we may find yet more.

It's a laundry list on each trait. What happened to K.I.S.S..

I can understand this to an extent, which is why I feel a Basic Traits set could flesh out the picture for our players. But then again, when has C2C ever worshiped the KISS principle? For that matter, when has AND? The very thing that attracted me to AND initially was how complex, in depth and expansive it was - more than any other mod that attempted to enhance the basic Civ game without taking it to a new genre. Keeping things simple is exactly what Vanilla is... ideas torn down to the basics for the masses to enjoy. Aren't we ALL here because we want MORE? That said, I can understand arguments that this line has been crossed for a personal sense of opinion, which is why a Basic Traits set would be valuable for us. It would give us a gradient of complexity that puts our core traits at the middle of the scale. (If you think you've seen a widely varied trait set - just wait.)

And what is up with the Founding a religion?

?

Is Multiple Religion Option in BUG broken?

I don't think so but it was set to off by default which I disagree with strongly as its one of my favorite elements of the mod to have it on.

I get to Tengrii 1st and I do not get the Cut scene (when you found a religion and it then gets placed in a city). In fact I go into the Religion screen and there is No Founding date on Tengrii at all.

Yeah, sounds like an as of yet unreported bug on Tengrii... Interesting. We have Tengriism in our game now and haven't had any trouble with it. Please express this in greater detail in the bug thread.

I Do Not have the new Religion Disabling Option checked, quite frankly I dislike it very much.

Well... it's not intended to completely disable buildings and it needs a lot more work to make it hit that 'in-between' active and disabled quality we're shooting for. And there's some better ways it could've been done. So for now its pending a major overhaul anyhow. I've left it as an option for those who cry out that its too strong to have all religious buildings active and leads to too much positive feedback, which it certainly does. But I'm glad its an option myself... I'm not sure I'd like it myself if it isn't up to the point where its a semi-deactivated building status and is rather as it is now - completely shutting down most religious buildings.

This Whole Trait thing should've been a Modmod.

Exactly WHAT whole trait thing... there's a LOT of 'trait things' that have been in development for a long time and have yet to truly flower and bloom into what all this work is headed for. Furthermore, very little of this work affects the trait option-less game - only the new tags that the core developer decided to put into play. Would you prefer to have a Vanilla traits set option? That not only COULD be done but could be cool for the mod as an option too.

@Thunderbrd:

How do levels of traits interact with the iYieldThresholds tag? Does it take the lowest threshold or is there some other wierd effect?

Ah yes... that one is a bit odd in the way that it was originally programmed and I did just follow suit. It will take only the best of any overlapping tag applications and will only ever give one additional yield of a given type. In short, with this tag alone, there is more of a replacement effect taking place.

It really amounts to a boolean condition tag for an additional given yield of a specified type that's evaluated for each type. Thus if you say 7 Production, you basically are saying +1 Production on plots with 7 or more existing production. But if you then add another trait to the leader that has a 6 Production, the 7 Production has no further effect as its completely overridden by the 6 Production (which is thus giving +1 Production on plots with 6 or more existing production.)

The opposite tag works the opposite way: minus one of the yield type indicated where the plots have at least as much yield as indicated, Thus 7 Production would mean -1 production on all plots that have 7 or more existing production. I believe if a leader has 7 Production on the iYieldsThresholds and a 6 Production on the iLessYieldsThresholds, you'd have a leader who's plots that have 6 Production or more getting -1 (thus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7) AND plots that have 7 Production or more getting +1, (thus as a base: 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9) and as combined: (1,2,3,4,5,5,6,8,9).

Note, however, I'm not sure if one of those modifiers will be taken into account before another as part of the evaluation of if the plot is at the point where it qualifies to be modified. So that last combined list of numbers might be a little flawed... I could check the code but you get the idea I think. Does this answer your question?

Because its one thing to have a civilization make progress by optimizing logistics per technology/civic and another one by attitude (trait) of its leader(s) or representatives in the especially excessive entourages.

True... the sources and causes are differing thus most civic tags are fully justified as being tags for traits, and most traits tags that aren't currently on civics yet could be easily seen as having cause to be. But there's ai concerns when you make a civic tag... very complex AI to work out. I don't much enjoy that side... don't like it at all. So I'm reluctant to make civics tags - and I have one or more now that still need to be somehow included in the AI there. Ugh... the complexity there is mind numbing.

Divine prophets, the other option means you reveive a prophet which you use to start a religion. I don't use it anymore either cause AI sometimes researches a religion tech first, then doesn't use the prophet it gets for founding of the religion and you as player don't know if it has been researched already so if you can get free prophet by being first. You still can found a religion you researched and that hasnt been founded by breeding a ghreat prophet.

I do have some work to do to make that part of the DP system much better. Now that I've improved a lot as a modder I know what I need to do to make it clear what techs have already given up their prophet and which ones haven't, which religions have been founded when you're looking at the prophet mission list and which ones are just available to be spread etc... It all makes sense to me now but its a matter of time and priorities. DP was my first mod so it still has some annoying little flaws like that in the lack of display adaptations. Sorry... it bugs me too (but I'd still prefer to have the DPs than not! Trying to play without this control over what city you want your religion founded in anymore is just intolerable.)

But that topic does hijack an already topic-busy thread

 

[JosEPh_II]

I started a new game with out Developing leaders and used Focused instead. I was able to found Tengrii with no problem on Prince. The same Difficulty level in the Developing Leaders (DL from now on) game.

Many ppl seem to like these new Trait Options so I'm just gonna back out of the discussion because all that will happen is I'll get blasted for not seeing it like everyone else. The overall premise is an idea that could add levels to the Mod's play. But impo it's too complicated, and I'm one of the biggest Micromanagers you will ever meet. Take that as you will.

JosEPh

 

[Sgtslick]

I might need some more time, its really a tonne of work. 165 individual traits it works out to be.

Its tough trying to factor in era related balance stuff + the fact that the traits stack etc etc.. I spent another 4-5 hours just now trying to make some more progress and i'm still a little over half way I reckon.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I can understand that. It would take a very long time to work out the full structure there.

 

[Sgtslick]

Haven't given up on this, I just need to find the time. Also since its not something I can just finish off in an hour or two, I kinda need to be in the mood and feel motivated tbh. One of these days

 

[Thunderbrd]

Thanks for letting us know it hasn't been forgotten Do you have any questions on any of the new features that I can help you to sort out?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I know I've probably completely overwhelmed you with all the tags to consider, but here's more we can now weave into the picture:

Update

- use new capture mechanics provided by TB now used in capture slaves.

This means we may now have Traits influence the nation's units so that they become either better or worse at capturing or resisting capture when defeated. I believe currently civics are the primary source of these modifiers but Traits, too can certainly play a role.

These can also be applied by Buildings (for local and national effect), Civics, to Units directly and on Promotions so I'm going off to mention it in those spots (unmentioned already) as well.

The tags are <iNationalCaptureProbabilityModifier> and <iNationalCaptureResistanceModifier>.

 

[climat]

<Flavor> of Anti-Clerical

<Flavor>
    <FlavorType>FLAVOR_RELIGION</FlavorType>
    <iFlavor>9</iFlavor>
</Flavor>

That of Fanatical

<Flavor>
     <FlavorType>FLAVOR_SCIENCE</FlavorType>
     <iFlavor>5</iFlavor>
</Flavor>
<Flavor>
     <FlavorType>FLAVOR_RELIGION</FlavorType>
     <iFlavor>-1</iFlavor>
</Flavor>

I thought positive points mean more value and negative ones mean less value. Was I wrong?

 

[Thunderbrd]

On a negative trait its somewhat inverse as the evaluation is to see if it would be more beneficial to remove it according to that flavor or least painful to take it according to that flavor. So think of it in terms of potential removal - a leader would be this motivated through this flavor to remove this negative trait.

 

[ls612]

On a negative trait its somewhat inverse as the evaluation is to see if it would be more beneficial to remove it according to that flavor or least painful to take it according to that flavor. So think of it in terms of potential removal - a leader would be this motivated through this flavor to remove this negative trait.

It would have been a better code practice to just use negative flavors in the XML and leave the evaluation alone. Now I need to go back and look at all of my traits to make sure that they are flavored correctly.

 

[Thunderbrd]

It would have been a better code practice to just use negative flavors in the XML and leave the evaluation alone. Now I need to go back and look at all of my traits to make sure that they are flavored correctly.

If you recall, I had not intended originally for negative flavors to have layers, nor to even be selected at any time except for removal. Yes, it somewhat messes with things and comes across a little more complex than they should but it would've been the better way IF the original design plan had been adhered to. Once setup, it was easier to maintain it this way.

Mind you, I'm not complaining about the adjustments made since then, selecting negative traits as part of the progression process, selecting positive traits for removal potentially instead, etc. And either way mathematically it does work out a little smoother in code as I don't have to inverse the values there before evaluating negative traits.

But you should have yours correct already considering I had made very clear to let you know this before you began working on your traits at all. Pretty sure I stated it to you on more than one occasion.

 

[ls612]

If you recall, I had not intended originally for negative flavors to have layers, nor to even be selected at any time except for removal. Yes, it somewhat messes with things and comes across a little more complex than they should but it would've been the better way IF the original design plan had been adhered to. Once setup, it was easier to maintain it this way.

But you should have yours correct already considering I had made very clear to let you know this before you began working on your traits at all. Pretty sure I stated it to you on more than one occasion.

My bad then, I must have seen that at one point because looking through it seems that the negative traits have good flavors.

 

[Maxima7]

Are the traits going to get levels soon?

 

[strategyonly]

This is my thinking, i believe that each trait ought to be change at each starting era. Meaning, in reality you are a changed leader, even though you INGAME keep the same named person, but then at the era start, you more or less changed Leaders, just in era timelines really, i wish we could change leaders but alas.
So each era you would get a NEW leader, and a new start, IF you wanted for traits. . . or am i off base here??

 

[Sgtslick]

I'll do it by next version I guess, when will that be do you think SO? Been doing other stuff in my spare time, its more work than what I anticipated, bit of a chore tbh. That being said, I am going to do it don't worry, have just been kinda procrastinating with it.

 

[Thunderbrd]

This is my thinking, i believe that each trait ought to be change at each starting era. Meaning, in reality you are a changed leader, even though you INGAME keep the same named person, but then at the era start, you more or less changed Leaders, just in era timelines really, i wish we could change leaders but alas.
So each era you would get a NEW leader, and a new start, IF you wanted for traits. . . or am i off base here??

You're not far off from the long term plan no. We're basically building numerous ways to play with leaders and something more like what you stated is also on the table. But for now I'd just like to get this project completed then we can move on to changing leaders as another option that would, of course, alter the way Developing Leaders works for them. The layered tiers we're working on now will bring a dimension to the Developing Leader option that has been long sought after. I believe you'll enjoy the results once we're 'there'.

 

[strategyonly]

You're not far off from the long term plan no. We're basically building numerous ways to play with leaders and something more like what you stated is also on the table. But for now I'd just like to get this project completed then we can move on to changing leaders as another option that would, of course, alter the way Developing Leaders works for them. The layered tiers we're working on now will bring a dimension to the Developing Leader option that has been long sought after. I believe you'll enjoy the results once we're 'there'.

Well then, sounds like a perfectly good PLAN!!

 

[Sgtslick]

I was curious, if I was to delete progressive (trait), would this break people's saves?

 

[Koshling]

I was curious, if I was to delete progressive (trait), would this break people's saves?

Not sure off hand. If it does I can fix it so that it just drops the trait if necessary.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I was curious, if I was to delete progressive (trait), would this break people's saves?

I've planned some additional tags to help develop the Progressist trait so if you simply adjust it (maybe even give it's current incarnation a tech prereq) but give it no further 'tiers' at this point, then we can get around the need for much further devel on it at the moment.

By giving it a tech prereq, there's no obsoletion check on traits so it shouldn't harm current games if a leader has it already - just keep others from being able to obtain it until the tech is achieved.

When I first really evaluated, on 'paper' as it were, the Progressist trait, it struck me as superflous. But since then I've seen the effect of the upgrade anywhere ability in play and have been inspired to find other ways to continue this train of thought. Tags to do so are still pending further devel though.