Future of Caveman2Cosmos

[raxo2222]

I went through and evaluated all the options in the v37 Player's Guide. I'm soon to update that page for v38 but generally, I gave opinions on playability there. I really don't know where we are with Rev balance at the moment but I think it's not tooo bad. Advanced start is just not really cost out with any genuine thought or evaluation - nearly everything has the same cost. So it's a little wonky but it's one way to go about it so as to challenge the player to really know the difference between what's worth purchasing and what isn't.

The No Storms bug option is definitely advised. Don't bother with Archer Bombard - it's pretty much obsolete.

Battle Effect - RevDCM BUG option is bit broken too - I'm getting lower yields from tile, even if I killed animal that had 0.01 strength (SM)
I guess No Storms can be enabled and hidden.
Archer Bombard, Advanced Start (pre-game option), Battle Field Effects and Resource Depletion could be disabled and hidden.
Edit: Aren't RevDCM options being one of most antique options?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Battle Effect - RevDCM BUG option is bit broken too - I'm getting lower yields from tile, even if I killed animal that had 0.01 strength (SM)

Of course you are that is what battle effects is all about. Lowering yields due to damage. That and the graphic that lets you see plots you should not be able to.

 

[raxo2222]

Of course you are that is what battle effects is all about. Lowering yields due to damage. That and the graphic that lets you see plots you should not be able to.

But they shouldn't happen if I kill single pigeon

 

[Toffer90]

But they shouldn't happen if I kill single pigeon

You are destroying the ecosystem! Yield penalty is to be expected, lol ^^.
I usually don't use the battle effect because the smoke graphic makes it possible to see plot features that are under the black smog of war.

Aren't RevDCM options being one of most antique options?

Yes, RevDCM options are quite dusted and forgotten in this mod.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Yes, RevDCM options are quite dusted and forgotten in this mod.

Because no one really understands their coding. koshling called it "spaghetti" and would not touch it. Then later Revolution modders pitched a fit when we tried to update it. Actually demanded we stop using the newest version(s). So it's lain there like a rotting corpse. And extrication of the Rev code I have been told would be a daunting task. I would Love to see someone remove it from C2C. I feel that C2C has moved past the "need" to have it at all.

As for the DCM portion Dale changed the ranged bombardment and made it almost worthless impo. He did it in regards to his players of FFH.

 

[raxo2222]

Because no one really understands their coding. koshling called it "spaghetti" and would not touch it. Then later Revolution modders pitched a fit when we tried to update it. Actually demanded we stop using the newest version(s). So it's lain there like a rotting corpse. And extrication of the Rev code I have been told would be a daunting task. I would Love to see someone remove it from C2C. I feel that C2C has moved past the "need" to have it at all.

As for the DCM portion Dale changed the ranged bombardment and made it almost worthless impo. He did it in regards to his players of FFH.

Revolutions part of RevDCM can be marked as unsupported in hover info, so players would know, that it doesn't function as it should, and it is very outdated.
Basically "play at your risk" game option.

There are dozen of DCM (part of RevDCM) options in BUG Mod Options though.
I bet their usefulness is different for each of these options

Spoiler :

 

[JosEPh_II]

I would never miss it.

 

[Tajo]

At Team:​

Should I completely remove the battle effects from C2C? It is python only so easy to remove.

I like the idea that good battle leaves it's mark on the battlefield. Espesially in later periods when guns and artillery are powerful. Why not keep it optional.

 

[raxo2222]

I like the idea that good battle leaves it's mark on the battlefield. Espesially in later periods when guns and artillery are powerful. Why not keep it optional.

Problem with this option is that even single pigeon vs single most basic dog will leave battle effect.

 

[Faustmouse]

I also like the idea of Battle effects, but I don't like the timespan that the effect last or the fact that even Pidgeon vs Dogs leave and effect.
Maybe TB gets bored at sometime in the future and decides to make it's own version of it, that takes into effect the total amount of stats colliding for example.

 

[Toffer90]

At Team:​

Should I completely remove the battle effects from C2C? It is python only so easy to remove.

Sorry, looked at it again, it's not easily removed as it is mainly handled by the dll.

 

[raxo2222]

Sorry, looked at it again, it's not easily removed as it is mainly handled by the dll.

Oh well.
Can be it hidden and forcefully disabled by default?
Can be No Storms option be forcefully enabled and hidden?

 

[Toffer90]

Can be it hidden and forcefully disabled by default?
Can be No Storms option be forcefully enabled and hidden?

Yes, but that is a bad solution.
It should either be completely removed or remain optionals, so that we don't leave loose ends lying around in the game assets. Such loose ends can confuse modders who don't know or remember what the loose ends do or were supposed to do, how they tie into to mod in general; potential minefield with loose ends.

 

[raxo2222]

Yes, but that is a bad solution.
It should either be completely removed or remain optionals, so that we don't leave loose ends lying around in the game assets. Such loose ends can confuse modders who don't know or remember what the loose ends do or were supposed to do, how they tie into to mod in general; potential minefield with loose ends.

ah okay, so what about just removing No Storm option and internally disabling spawning of Storm feature?

 

[Toffer90]

ah okay, so what about just removing No Storm option and internally disabling spawning of Storm feature?

Unless it is completely removed from the dll, it will leave loose ends. The team will have to agree on it's removal and TB or any other c++ modders will have to agree to do the deed on the dll side.

 

[raxo2222]

Unless it is completely removed from the dll, it will leave loose ends. The team will have to agree on it's removal and TB or any other c++ modders will have to agree do the deed on the dll side.

Ah so this BUG Mod option had deep roots too.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I don't really want to remove it. I'd rather make it more efficient somehow down the road. I like the graphics of it. And some may like it and feel its worth the slowdown.

 

[Harrier]

Actually Rise of Mankind has its roots in two Civ III mods of the "more is better" style. "Double your Pleasure" and "RARR" if I remember correctly They were two of my three favorite mods in Civ III. The Civ II tech tree was very hard to work with. One page per era and no scrolling.

Memories.

Kal-El asked me to join the modding team for DYP, which I did of course.

I then became a Beta-tester for Civ3 Conquests. Then helped develop RAR.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Memories.

Kal-El asked me to join the modding team for DYP, which I did of course.

I then became a Beta-tester for Civ3 Conquests. Then helped develop RAR.

They were where I first learned to mod Civ.

 

[raxo2222]

I wonder what would be ultimate fate of resources, pests and property pseudobuildings in later eras - Nanotech till end of game.
That is how later eras would be designed regarding these things.
There are some techs like Nanotechnology, Femtotechnology all way to planck scale technology and timespace fabric manipulation.