How much does a settler cost for you?

[Maniac]

Simple question. Reason I ask is that with me settlers in mods always cost 100 hammers more than what is indicated in XML. However not everyone seems to have this problem. So I'd like to know how widespread this is.

Settlers in XML in FfH cost 120 hammers. In-game they cost 220 hammers with me.

Conditions: Normal game speed, just a regular game where you start on Year 1.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I believe I've heard that settler cost is changed in game based on speed, turn number, etc., but I haventl located this in the code. I believe I recall them being more expensive than I thought they should be, but I really don't have the time to play to test it.

 

[Maniac]

Normal game speed, just a regular game where you start on Year 1.

It has something to do with getNewCityProductionValue() in cvPlayer.ccp

 

[woodelf]

I think mine was 220 on Quick. It seems to change from game to game thus confusing the beejesus out of me.

 

[westamastaflash]

Settler cost is why I now always play on advanced start with at least 1500 points. Speeds up the boring early game immensely.

 

[Maniac]

I wonder what the Banana votes are about?

In any case, I assume from these poll results that everyone has high settler costs, but no one bothered to pose public questions about this inexplicable change from pre-BtS.

 

[bc1]

Warriors are much cheaper than settlers, their cost doesn't change, they're much more effective, and they have a chance of reuse.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

Warriors are much cheaper than settlers, their cost doesn't change, they're much more effective, and they have a chance of reuse.

Warriors do not found cities.

Speeds up the boring early game immensely.

I love the early game, it gets boring when there is no space co settle, no place for barbs to spawn and all are in a stalemate, you have either already won or lost. That is boring

Could it have something to do with the difficulty level you are playing?

 

[westamastaflash]

Warriors do not found cities.



I love the early game, it gets boring when there is no space co settle, no place for barbs to spawn and all are in a stalemate, you have either already won or lost. That is boring

Could it have something to do with the difficulty level you are playing?

I suck at anything above Monarch, so Monarch is my setting. I just hate clicking "end turn" 50 times.... And if I switch to quick mode, tech happens too fast to get me a nice army that isn't obsolete soon....

 

[Ringtailed]

It's 220 on normal speed.

I kind of figured the change was intentional to slow down early expansion. I wonder if the AI is subject to the inflated settler cost also.

 

[Sandro]

I raised this issue a long time ago. I manually go into the xml and change the icost for settler to 20 (instead of 120) everytime there is a new patch. There is a changelog where Kael states that settler cost is changed to 120, so I guess that is the intended value and the 220 is a mistake...

When this is changed, please also change city walls to be like in BTS:
50% defence and 50% reduction in bombardment effect. This would make them worthwile to build and make the defensive trait a bit more useful. Right now they are simply ridiculous (as mentioned in many previous posts by myself and others).

My final small wish is to remove the ability of the cheap no_building_requirement warriors to use bronze and iron weapons since this simply makes no sense and, in addition, makes them way to powerful for both offense and defense. Right now I also manually go and change this everytime there is a new patch.

Cheers,

Sandro

 

[bc1]

Warriors do not found cities.

No kidding but warriors are simply more effective at *getting* cities

 

[Eisklinge]

From the Civ4UnitInfos.xml: <iCost>0</iCost>. So it is quite likely the game just adds 100 hammers to the cost in the xml-file, probably somewhere in the python or SDK. Currently, I am digging through the files to find out where exactly, but being someone with very, very little modding experience, that might take ages (IF successful at all).

edith says: My apologies, the 0-value is of course only valid for the non-modded civ. Nevertheless the conclusion of the hidden +100 hammers is still valid.

edith2 says: Addional test with different gamespeeds and negative entries for the icost: The hidden 100-hammer cost scales with gamespeed. iCost is applied afterwards (x1.5 if a negative value is given ... this thing is really, really weird (and no, I did not choose an imperialistic leader for testing )). And no, I was yet unable to figure out WHERE they come from

 

[Maniac]

This is the cause:

Spoiler :

int CvPlayer::getNewCityProductionValue() const
{
	int iValue = 0;
	for (int iJ = 0; iJ < GC.getNumBuildingClassInfos(); iJ++)
	{
		BuildingTypes eBuilding = ((BuildingTypes)(GC.getCivilizationInfo(getCivilizationType()).getCivilizationBuildings(iJ)));

		if (NO_BUILDING != eBuilding)
		{
			if (GC.getBuildingInfo(eBuilding).getFreeStartEra() != NO_ERA)
			{
				if (GC.getGameINLINE().getStartEra() >= GC.getBuildingInfo(eBuilding).getFreeStartEra())
				{
					iValue += (100 * getProductionNeeded(eBuilding)) / std::max(1, 100 + getProductionModifier(eBuilding));
				}
			}
		}
	}

	iValue *= 100 + GC.getDefineINT("NEW_CITY_BUILDING_VALUE_MODIFIER");
	iValue /= 100;

	iValue += (GC.getDefineINT("ADVANCED_START_CITY_COST") * GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpeedType()).getGrowthPercent()) / 100;

	int iPopulation = GC.getDefineINT("INITIAL_CITY_POPULATION") + GC.getEraInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getStartEra()).getFreePopulation();
	for (int i = 1; i <= iPopulation; ++i)
	{
		iValue += (getGrowthThreshold(i) * GC.getDefineINT("ADVANCED_START_POPULATION_COST")) / 100;
	}

	return iValue;
}

Solution is setting the XML cost to 0 and IIRC ADVANCED_START_CITY_COST to 80.

 

[civ_king]

ahem FYI bronze is stronger then iron... steel is stronger then bronze therefore if you have a melee unit, bronze should give a bigger bonus then iron
(sorry OT)

 

[rusty217]

ahem FYI bronze is stronger than iron... steel is stronger then bronze therefore if you have a melee unit, bronze should give a bigger bonus than iron
(sorry OT)

Well bronze was found before iron so it wouldn't make sense to have the later metal have a weaker effect.... and Iron is used to make steel, so in the end weapons using iron were stronger than any weapons using bronze.

And as for settlers, i prefer the 220 cost, it prolongs the expansion stage, and more animals and barbarians is always good for a fantasy mod...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The superiority of iron comes from 2 facts:
1. Iron ore is much more common (and you only need one type of ore) and therefore the weapons are much cheaper (although you need hotter furnaces)
2. Bronze is significantly heavier than Iron, so soldiers with bronze weapons and especially armor would not have the endurance of those with iron.


In my modmod, I'll probably remove the automatically granted weapons promotions and instead grant them through spells. That way, I can have more types with special strengths and weaknesses, and can make them each cost gold. Iron would be slightly worse than bronze, but bronze is rather costly and iron (although having higher tech requirements needing a forge) is very cheap.

 

[Ringtailed]

And as for settlers, i prefer the 220 cost, it prolongs the expansion stage, and more animals and barbarians is always good for a fantasy mod...

Though I get what you're saying here, high settler costs makes peaceful play even more difficult because conquest becomes a more rewarding form of expansion.