General A New Dawn discussion
- Thread starter Rezca
- Start date
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
I haven't made it to that segment of the game in some time, but from what I remember the 'desert-ification' of tiles mechanic was removed and replaced with just random patches of fallout spawning or improvements vanishing.
I liked the desert mechanic since it made excessive use of nuclear weapons have a larger impact on the end game in the long term, and even though you can terraform in AND (If the option is switched on) it takes a very long time, a lot longer than just scrubbing fallout.
It wasn't a super-realistic mechanic, but I still appreciated it.
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
desertification is actually a realistic effect of global warming. It's what is happening in Syria and the Middle East, worsening existing problems there.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
I more meant the way it was implemented than the effect itself, but yeah.
Really?Why?
Can we get it back?
Can't remember if anything was said, but I think in K-Mod they approached the Global Warming effects in a different manner or something?
I'm not sure either what we have. From reading the code in CvGame.cpp, it looks like there are two kinds of global warming.
Regular global warming comes from unhealthy buildings, unhealthy bonuses, and power. This can destroy improvements, remove features and looks like it should be able to melt terrain such as melting Tundra or drying Marsh. As I read the code, it can even turn flat terrain into Coast. It won't do anything to a city, though.
Nuclear winter from exploded nukes, and I think it counts any nuke ever exploded with no wearing off, can turn any terrain into Tundra or Ice, remove improvements, and place Fallout.
Again, this is just from trying to read the code. I haven't seen it in action at any time recently. I think I've seen it once in a very old game of RoM. I had a couple of meltdowns and then started to see Fallout springing up from time to time.
nionios
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 466
There's something similar if you order your spy to just 'wait' for a turn(10% bonus per waiting turn,up to 5 turns maximum).If I'm not mistaken,It applies on every enemy tile.
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
Nuclear fallout randomly appearing on distant tiles is "nuclear winter" feature. I frankly don't know what happened to global warming, I thought about it some times in the past but I've never seen it working since years. I'll check the code when I get back home: I won't talk about a date anymore because what was supposed to be a 2-3 months flat renovation has turned into a 9 months nightmare.
I liked the old mechanic too.
I was thinking that this mod had the global warming component, since the global warming on RoM works pretty similar to LoR mod.
I apologise for any mistakes in my English
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
Aaah sorry to hear that xvx
Krygex
Chieftain
As someone who enjoys flinging WMD's around in the Modern Era (or at least the possibility of it happening in a particularly hostile or crowded civ game), I'm fine with the current fallout system. It means that there is the possibility of multiple big wars happening, and getting ended by nukes, especially considering RAND has an extra 200 or so years of time when nukes are available. Fallout's annoying, but not potentially civilization destroying like desertification is.
It would be fair if it happened in direct proportion to the amount of WMD's used u̶n̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶g̶a̶m̶e̶.
Then again, It appears to me in game that RAND already has fallout effects in said proportion I mentioned...
My point is, I don't think it should replace the random radiation system, just be tacked on. Like, hotter regions get desert-ified, and colder regions get tundra/ice-ified
Also, does anybody know if the AI "gets' the concept of deterrence in this new version? Like, the fact that "if this person has the possibility having a lot of nukes, I probably should be more reluctant attack them ". I certainly know the last game I played with (an admittedly very old version of) RAND, the AI was still as aggressive towards me as before, and I was forced to end their aggression with nuclear fire!
It would be fair if it happened in direct proportion to the amount of WMD's used u̶n̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶g̶a̶m̶e̶.
Then again, It appears to me in game that RAND already has fallout effects in said proportion I mentioned...
My point is, I don't think it should replace the random radiation system, just be tacked on. Like, hotter regions get desert-ified, and colder regions get tundra/ice-ified
Also, does anybody know if the AI "gets' the concept of deterrence in this new version? Like, the fact that "if this person has the possibility having a lot of nukes, I probably should be more reluctant attack them ". I certainly know the last game I played with (an admittedly very old version of) RAND, the AI was still as aggressive towards me as before, and I was forced to end their aggression with nuclear fire!
Ok, this component would be amazing in RAND.
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
I think that component was part of RoM at some point, if it's still in (which I don't know), it's probably been disabled. I'll have a look when I can.
As for deterrence, AI makes some easy calculation if target Civ has nukes. It makes more complex calculation when using Mad civic. It can definitely start a conventional war but weights in a lot of factors before firing a nuke, included but not limited to size of nuke arsenals, number of cities (a one city Civ with 20 nukes is an easier target than a 40 cities Civ with 20 nukes), number of bomb shelters and intercepting wonders, for both attacker/defender, and of course some randomness. If you are the one starting a nuclear war, it will probably use every available nuke.
As for deterrence, AI makes some easy calculation if target Civ has nukes. It makes more complex calculation when using Mad civic. It can definitely start a conventional war but weights in a lot of factors before firing a nuke, included but not limited to size of nuke arsenals, number of cities (a one city Civ with 20 nukes is an easier target than a 40 cities Civ with 20 nukes), number of bomb shelters and intercepting wonders, for both attacker/defender, and of course some randomness. If you are the one starting a nuclear war, it will probably use every available nuke.
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
Been meaning to ask... Is the thing that allows AI to raze a city then fortify the ruins something that can be toggled off easily, or is it something trickier that's going to have to wait for a larger update down the road?
I've been holding off on continuing my games since this has been posing quite a problem
I've been holding off on continuing my games since this has been posing quite a problem
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
Just an other mod-comp I'd love to see in AND:
GreedyManul
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 292
For health/happiness resources, it COULD work, but what I'd like to see for strategic resources is this system: a resource (for example, iron) can only support a finite number of say, swordsmen, scaled by map size. If it's allowed for someone to go past the limit, if someone goes past that limit, the extra swordsman will have +1 support cost, the second extra +2, the third +3, etc, until their economy crashes with no survivors because they fielded too many swordsmen. Alternatively, make future swordsmen more expensive to build: if 1 iron can support 5 swordsmen, the 6th swordsman will cost 20% more, the 7th 40% more, the 8th 60% more, etc. It'd be a pretty neat way to eliminate the overflow of mounted/heavy melee units without messing with the unit support costs of the units themselves too much.
To compensate, it'd be good for RoM:AND to have levy/auxiliary units like Realism Invictus has, meaning one can have a mixed force of strong main units, and an auxilliary of conscripts/levies to have as meat shields.
To compensate, it'd be good for RoM:AND to have levy/auxiliary units like Realism Invictus has, meaning one can have a mixed force of strong main units, and an auxilliary of conscripts/levies to have as meat shields.
Nice ideas there. I'm not sure I like increasing costs per unit, as I suspect that it'd be very hard to keep track of and to understand what's costing so much.
The resource-limiting model I favour is as follows: while a city is building a unit which requires e.g. iron, that iron isn't available elsewhere. If you've three horses, then three cities can concurrently build horse-based units. This limits the rate of building units if you've many cities. It would tend to favour smaller empires I guess - which may or may not be desirable to everyone - as they are less likely to be impacted / restricted as much. I doubt that such a system is currently possible to implement, but I reckon it'd be really neat.
A further possibility is that a particular building uses one instance of a resource: e.g. a stable always consumes exactly one horse. Then if horse-based units require a stable to be built, you can only build them there. But I don't think buildings can use one instance of a resource either, at the moment...
Cheers, A.
The resource-limiting model I favour is as follows: while a city is building a unit which requires e.g. iron, that iron isn't available elsewhere. If you've three horses, then three cities can concurrently build horse-based units. This limits the rate of building units if you've many cities. It would tend to favour smaller empires I guess - which may or may not be desirable to everyone - as they are less likely to be impacted / restricted as much. I doubt that such a system is currently possible to implement, but I reckon it'd be really neat.
A further possibility is that a particular building uses one instance of a resource: e.g. a stable always consumes exactly one horse. Then if horse-based units require a stable to be built, you can only build them there. But I don't think buildings can use one instance of a resource either, at the moment...
Cheers, A.
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
I don't really like the idea that a single resource can support a sprawling supernation but at the same time I'm not really liking the sounds of any of these tbh, but the minimod Sogroon here suggested sounds like the least annoying; but if/should it be added I'd hope it'd remain an optional thing. I hated resource depletion mechanics and these don't sound to be any less un-fun.
Granted I agree that the idea a single resource can support a huge nation can be a bit silly at times, but even so... I'd prefer that lapse of realism over being forced to deal with a tedious or complex mechanic that saps the fun out of things.
So did I. But I think it could be salvaged if there was some more feedback / information available, e.g. building a swordsman told you somewhere that it uses 0.01 irons and building the Colossus uses 0.9 coppers or whatever. That could be OK if you also have the amount remaining shown, e.g. in the city screen next to the resource icon. Then you can decide whether or not it's worth building a swordsman; perhaps an archer would do instead.
But then we're moving towards the Colonization route where quantities of stuff are introduced. I personally really like that aspect other than that managing the storage and distribution becomes a pain - a problem which doesn't exist in the Civ IV resource-depletion-with-information system I propose.
Cheers, A.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Question about Flexible Difficulty; does the AI use the same scale as the player? I.e, if I set the minimal difficulty to Warlord, and the maximum to Monarch, will the AI follow the same rules? Because I'm pretty sure I did that but one of the AIs is on Settler.
Similar threads
