GEM generic modification

[Bastian-Bux]

Yeah, culture is troublesome in scenarios. As USA in 1940 you can easily squish Canada and Mexico in a few years if you make intense use of Sushi and Radio.

 

[Ace of Spades]

One suggestion that just came into mind would be a python script, running at game start, that adds 100,000 culture (or any other value, this would need to be balanced dependant on Scenario start) to any plot for the civ that has the most culture in this plot (if anyone has).

This would ensure that present borders cannot be pushed easily at game start, and prevent occurences such as the frequent cultural flips of spanish and venetian cities to rome in the 1500 AD scenario - every time I play this, Rome flips at least Caligari, Palermo, Durezzo and often even Venice.

However, I am not as fluent in python as to supply such a script.

Best Regards,
Ace / Martin

 

[Genghis_Kai]

One suggestion that just came into mind would be a python script, running at game start, that adds 100,000 culture (or any other value, this would need to be balanced dependant on Scenario start) to any plot for the civ that has the most culture in this plot (if anyone has).

This would ensure that present borders cannot be pushed easily at game start, and prevent occurences such as the frequent cultural flips of spanish and venetian cities to rome in the 1500 AD scenario - every time I play this, Rome flips at least Caligari, Palermo, Durezzo and often even Venice.

However, I am not as fluent in python as to supply such a script.

Best Regards,
Ace / Martin

I don't write python either, and secondly, what if someone actually took the city militarily?

 

[Ace of Spades]

If I wrote a python script that does this, would you use it? I'll try to teach myself enough to get this done.

I'm not quite sure where the problem is with cities being taken militarily. What do you suggest?

Best Regards,
Martin / Ace

 

[Ace of Spades]

Hello Kai,

after all, it was surprisingly easy to create such a script as I proposed. Works perfectly for me... now it finally makes sense to set exact territory borders in WorldBuilder, since they will not simply be pushed back next turn.

I chose 10000 culture to be added, but you might change the value if you want to use the script.

The whole thing has to be added to the event manager, but maybe I can just come up with a custom event manager, so you would have to add only a single file to the mod... should not be too hard to create one, but not tonight. All in case you're interested in incorporating it, of course.

# ace - culture solidifier - start			
		iIndex = 1
		while iIndex < gc.getMap().numPlots():
			iIndex = iIndex + 1
			owner = gc.getMap().plotByIndex(iIndex).calculateCulturalOwner()
			if owner > -1:
				gc.getMap().plotByIndex(iIndex).changeCulture(owner,10000,False)	
# ace - culture solidifier - end

Best Regards,
Ace / Martin

 

[Ace of Spades]

I just realized that maybe this is too biased... it does not allow for strong culture in foreign territories. What I could do is to modify the script to just amplify (i.e. multiply with a scalar value) the current values... therefore they will be harder to change, but still proportional to the original values.

EDIT:

		# ace - culture solidifier - start			
		iIndex = 1
		while iIndex < gc.getMap().numPlots():
			iIndex = iIndex + 1
			for iPlayer in range(gc.getMAX_PLAYERS()):
				iCulture = gc.getMap().plotByIndex(iIndex).getCulture(iPlayer)
				iCulture = iCulture * 999
				gc.getMap().plotByIndex(iIndex).changeCulture(iPlayer,iCulture,False)

This will multiply the starting plot culture by 1000.

Maybe I could try to adjust the value based on date (to reflect that starting culture is more solidified in 1940 AD than in 1500 AD). However, since the scenarios use different calendars, and all start on turn 0, this will be rather challenging I suppose.

Best Regards,
Martin / Ace

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Dear all,

I want to make some change to the trade route system and would like to gather your opinion here.

Currently, the trade system is as follow:

Default: 1 trade route
Currency: +1 trade route
Corporation: +1 trade route
Free Market: +1 trade route
Mercantilism: no foreign trade route
Castle: +1 trade route (until Economics)
Harbor: +25% trade commerce, +1 commerce on water tiles (GEM v5.2 setting)
Cothon: harbor and also +1 trade route
Airport: +1 trade route
Custom House: +100% commerce from intercontinental foreign trade routes
Great Lighthouse: coastal cities +2 trade routes (until Corporation)
Temple of Artemis: +100% trade commerce in host city

The thing I don't like now is that, those pop 1 cities, with no improvement, no buildings can get a large sum of commerce from trade routes. For example, in the 1940AD scenario, Nuuk, South Georgia and South Sandwich can get 4 intercontinental trade routes and a commerce of over 20 just simply being there.

So I want to change the trade route calc to be more related to city improvements as follow:

Default: 1 trade route
Currency and Corporation has no effect
Free Market: +1 trade route
Mercantilism: no foreign trade route
Market: +1 trade route
Grocer: +1 trade route
Supermarket: +1 trade route
Castle has no effect
Harbor: +25% trade commerce, +1 commerce on water tiles (GEM v5.2 setting)
Cothon: harbor and also +1 trade route
Airport: +25% trade commerce
Custom House: +100% commerce from intercontinental foreign trade routes
Great Lighthouse: coastal cities +2 trade routes (until Corporation)
Temple of Artemis: +100% trade commerce in host city

I also think it makes more sense that a city with a market (which requires currency to build) gets more trading rather than a city just have currency but no market.

 

[Jabarto]

I like this idea, but just out of curioistiy...

Airport: +25 trade route commerce

...if this replaces the trade route that the Airport normally grants, will it increase or decrease the total trade revenue?

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I like this idea, but just out of curioistiy...



...if this replaces the trade route that the Airport normally grants, will it increase or decrease the total trade revenue?

I removed the trade route Airport originally gets because:

Originally, Currency, Corporation and Airport gets +3 trade route.
Now, Market, Grocer and Supermarket gets +3 trade route already.

So the number of trade route one can get should be the same as before. Note also that, in the default Civ4 setting, Harbor gets +50% trade commerce. The new setting, Harbor +25%, Airport +25% would make it the same as the civ 4 standard as well.

In summary, my idea is not to change the commerce generated from trading. The idea is to make trading not as something you can get for free.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Another change I wanted to make. A minor one:

Power Plant / Shale Plant's prereq tech change to Electricity from Assembly Line. I am reviewing the tech tree and found this original setting to be very odd.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Is it possible to edit XML in a way that Buildings get properties when techs are known?

The idea would be something like:

As long as you have the Corporation tech, you get +1 trade routes from Banks.

Personally, I would rather have Banks give +1 trade routes than Supermarkets. Especially with the Computers tech (wired money transfer).

Supermarkets are already very powerful with their Health bonus, as are Grocers.

Best Regards,
Ace

 

[Halt]

I guess my comment on the trade route issue is, I do not like the proposed change.

Why have a small island colony with the proposed change? They are just drains now (a way to nerf civ's with small islands) and provide no benefit.

If the purpose is to add a nerf to weaken certain countries or modify a behavior you do not like that is one thing, but as a economic reality trade routes are a derivative of ; distance, resources, access, frequency.

So with the proposed change, the only reasonable choice under some of the existsing scenarios, would be to “free” the small islands into colonies which would push up the number of civilizations in the game, correct?

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Is it possible to edit XML in a way that Buildings get properties when techs are known?

The idea would be something like:

As long as you have the Corporation tech, you get +1 trade routes from Banks.

Personally, I would rather have Banks give +1 trade routes than Supermarkets. Especially with the Computers tech (wired money transfer).

Supermarkets are already very powerful with their Health bonus, as are Grocers.

Best Regards,
Ace

I don't know if that is possible. I can check. Two reasons I've chose Supermarket instead of Bank 1) It make a bit more sense for supermarket to increase the trading demand (hence +1 trade route) than a bank does; 2) Supermarket is later technology; Banking seems too close to Currency.
But it is also quite true that Supermarket is already very useful.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I guess my comment on the trade route issue is, I do not like the proposed change.

Why have a small island colony with the proposed change? They are just drains now (a way to nerf civ's with small islands) and provide no benefit.

If the purpose is to add a nerf to weaken certain countries or modify a behavior you do not like that is one thing, but as a economic reality trade routes are a derivative of ; distance, resources, access, frequency.

So with the proposed change, the only reasonable choice under some of the existsing scenarios, would be to “free” the small islands into colonies which would push up the number of civilizations in the game, correct?

Not really. Don't forget in GEM, see tiles get +1 hammer. Those small islands are not that useless in itself. They can be built up like other land cities do. Once they have market or Grocer, they will still benefit from intercontinental trading.

 

[Jabarto]

I removed the trade route Airport originally gets because:

Originally, Currency, Corporation and Airport gets +3 trade route.
Now, Market, Grocer and Supermarket gets +3 trade route already.

So the number of trade route one can get should be the same as before. Note also that, in the default Civ4 setting, Harbor gets +50% trade commerce. The new setting, Harbor +25%, Airport +25% would make it the same as the civ 4 standard as well.

In summary, my idea is not to change the commerce generated from trading. The idea is to make trading not as something you can get for free.

Oh, ok, I forgot about the reduced harbor bonus in this mod. I thought these changes would end with one less trade route than in the default settings.

 

[Conqistador]

I like the trade route ideas. If possible, perhaps give Financial civs a build bonus for Harbours, like Spiritual civs get a Temple bonus. Also, would it be possible to make Missionaries available from the "Cathedral" buildings, for easier post Scientific Method religion spread.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Another change I wanted to make. A minor one:

Power Plant / Shale Plant's prereq tech change to Electricity from Assembly Line. I am reviewing the tech tree and found this original setting to be very odd.

I have to make some generic change again.

At the moment in v5.2:
Steam Power -> Levee
Assembly Line -> Factory
Electricity -> Coal Plant

I will change it to:
Engineering -> Levee
Steam Power -> Factory
Assembly Line -> Coal Plant

Reason is that, in the 1860 scenario, I don't want to give Assembly Line to the European nations yet. It is something to be invented in the 20th century, as well it triggers Infantry which should not be in the scenario. But it would be silly to have no factories in Europe by 1860 Hence, the change.

Then it leads me to also review the current production related buildings and realized Levee should come much earlier in the tech tree. And now that Assembly Line got nothing left, I will give Coal Plant back to it just as BTS default.

The tech cost of Steam Power will increase from 3200 -> 4000
The tech cost of Assembly Line will decrease from 5000 -> 4500

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I will also bring forward the reveal of coal from Steam Power -> Gunpowder; enabling Cannon from Steel -> Replaceable Parts

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I have done some changes to the specialist's bonuses. This will be the setting for GEM 7.

The biggest change is the role of a Priest. Priest will give food and culture, instead of production and gold - I think arguably, with a Priest, farmers can be more productive, and Theology can be considered as a form of culture. Anyway, the real reason is because I want to diversify the specialty of the specialist.

Assuming food = 3pts, production = 2pts and any type of commerce = 1pt; each specialist will now generate an equivalent of 6pts and each great specialist will generate an equivalent of 18pts (except citizen and great general).

 

[Ace of Spades]

Okay, this enhances some of the specialists a bit. However, when going for a specialist economy (and that makes perfect sense still) you would still want to use merchant specialists exclusively in the long run.

Let's assume your city growth is currently not limited by health and happiness, but by food. This will happen often enough in GEM, since the cities are spaced closer together and therefore most of the time cannot work 20 tiles. You will want to use Representation anyway, since it's the best Government for a specialist economy. Therefore, your merchants will generate 1 3 3 3 each.

Because they generate 1, you can have two of them where you could have any two other specialists. You balanced the output somewhat with the proposed changes, but you still get the extra 3 (because each specialist gains them individually) and 3 due to Representation. Plus, you get population points, which helps you in AP and UN votes and adds to your score.

Effectively, there is no fair way to balance the 1 that merchants give you by just adding more production and commerce to the other specialists. However, in some way I think this is okay - there have to be some ways to play that are smart as opposed to those who do not help you as much, otherwise player decisions would be not as much fun.

As the most fun part of the GEM scenarios are usually the first 100 turns (after that it gets very much ahistorical anyway) long term calculations like mine probably do not matter that much...

Best Regards,
Martin