incremental patch discussion

Deliverator · Mar 26, 2010

Hi Keldath, Good to hear from you.

I don't have particularly strong feelings about merging in RevDCM either way, but I'm not especially convinced that it is worth it since we don't use any of the Rev features. There is always I risk that doing this kind of merging can create the kind of issues we had with the Multiple Production modcomp. I think it might be better to consider Dune Wars branched off from RevDCM and only cherry pick the changes and fixes that interest us, rather than keep automatically updating when new versions are released.

Ahriman · Mar 26, 2010

I think it might be better to consider Dune Wars branched off from RevDCM and only cherry pick the changes and fixes that interest us, rather than keep automatically updating when new versions are released.

I agree. If there is a compelling feature we want, we can update. Otherwise the risks of bug introduction seem to outweight the potential benefits.

Is there anything particularly useful in the latest version?

It would also be great if someone could merge in embryo's post 999 fix.

keldath · Mar 26, 2010

yeah i know d,

im not to fond of the rev stuff,
i merged it mainly for ai 0.84, and new bug/

also theres some usfull new tags there - like ciivic preq for units, and some more.

i leave it to your decision guys, i just felt like doing it ..you know

davidlallen · Mar 26, 2010

After some searching, I found the release note for revdcm 2.71 here. Previously we had 2.6; the version was updated in DW 1.7 and the details are here. It seems that 2.71 makes multiplayer "better" but it is still not really working. That would be a "killer app" worth updating for.

Let's stay with 2.6 for now; but when we decide to move to 1.8 it may be worth considering.

I will add embryodead's three lines into the dll and post an update, probably 12 hours from now. I guess that will be 1.7.2.4. I'll include the source code in that too, so it doesn't get out of sync.

I'll also look into the dynamic tech tree stuff. The other alternative is to spread out the X coordinate of the techs. Your tree is very densely packed and contains many branches, so the routing problem is hard. Individual line overlaps can often be solved by making sure that all the destination techs are at the same x position, and sometimes by moving a tech up or down by one. However, in a very dense tree, there isn't enough room for that.

Of course, simplifying the tech tree by deleting a number of mid-game techs would make the routing easier also.

Ahriman · Mar 26, 2010

Of course, simplifying the tech tree by deleting a number of mid-game techs would make the routing easier also.

I think that the visuals of arrows are relatively unimportant compared to the gameplay consequences of actual techs.

Which techs do you consider candidates for removal? I don't think there are too many obvious ones, Deliverator has removed or merged many of the less interesting techs already.

davidlallen · Mar 26, 2010

I don't have any specific candidates, I was just observing that the tech tree looks very dense and complicated.

Deliverator · Mar 26, 2010

davidlallen said:
I'll also look into the dynamic tech tree stuff. The other alternative is to spread out the X coordinate of the techs. Your tree is very densely packed and contains many branches, so the routing problem is hard. Individual line overlaps can often be solved by making sure that all the destination techs are at the same x position, and sometimes by moving a tech up or down by one. However, in a very dense tree, there isn't enough room for that.

I know the current tech tree is a bit cramped, but with NeseryozniyVET's algorithm there is zero crossover and it looks pretty good I think. Spreading out along the X-axis is a possibility I suppose, but I'm not sure you'd be able to fix the crossovers that way. We could introduce vertical scrolling and more rows as some mods have done, but I'm not a huge fan of that either. Overall I think using NeseryozniyVET's algorithm is not a bad solution.

Yes, the tech tree is fairly dense around the middle, but I don't think it is too complicated. We aiming to keep gameplay interesting throughout the entire course of a game. The number and progression of techs needs to be considered separately from the cosmetic presentation of them in the tech tree in my opinion.

Ahriman · Mar 26, 2010

I was just observing that the tech tree looks very dense and complicated.

I think this is a good thing. Lots of flavor, lots of strategic options, lots of replay value.

One of my tech-tree design goals was to have something different from vanilla, which tends to force you into getting roughly the same techs in the same order every day.

Pickly · Mar 26, 2010

A couple things I noticed:

Wind turbines produce more minerals that mines, and can be built on hills (I'm pretty sure I saw the icon there, at least), so it doesn't seem worthwhile at the moment to even build mines at all except for special resources. (Unless wind turbines could be built on hills before the patch as well, in which case it's still an issue that I missed.) Were you going to switch turbines to be a more commerce oriented improvement, and make them hills only?

Fremen still don't get mysticism starting out. I remember reading that you were going ot do this, and I'm guessing you probably will in the future, but this post will just point this out to make sure.

The new religion buildings aren't in the civilopedia religion articles. They are elsewhere in there, and as far as I know they work fine, but adding them might be useful for a future patch to keep things updated for people who aren't paying complete attention.

Ahriman · Mar 26, 2010

Wind turbines produce more minerals that mines, and can be built on hills (I'm pretty sure I saw the icon there, at least), so it doesn't seem worthwhile at the moment to even build mines at all except for special resources. (Unless wind turbines could be built on hills before the patch as well, in which case it's still an issue that I missed.) Were you going to switch turbines to be a more commerce oriented improvement, and make them hills only?

Turbines and solar plants weren't really getting much play before.
Under the new system, yes it is intended that you dont' build mines except on bonus resources, and that you use windtraps or turbines on mesa, and then cottages or solar plants on flat, and then mines on bonuses.
You can also build mines on mesa as a short-term change before you get the turbines tech.

Turbines used to be flatland only, and tended to be dominated by solar plant + cottage mix. The logical argument is; there is wind on mesa tops (for turbines), and shelter in sinks (for solar plants)

I don't want to make turbines commerce oriented, because that detracts from cottages. Cottages and spice should be the main commerce providers.

Fremen still don't get mysticism starting out. I remember reading that you were going ot do this, and I'm guessing you probably will in the future, but this post will just point this out to make sure.

They *did* in one of my files, I guess that change got lost in the merges?
Leaderhead file from http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9000630&postcount=954 had that change.
Intention was that Fremen start with Mysticism and Desert survival, but still also start with a (single) Fremen scout (they can't build more until they get Exploration tech).

The new religion buildings aren't in the civilopedia religion articles. They are elsewhere in there, and as far as I know they work fine, but adding them might be useful for a future patch to keep things updated for people who aren't paying complete attention.

We should do that eventually, once we are satisfied with our "third tier" religion choices for each religion.

davidlallen · Mar 26, 2010

Let's see how many different patches we can get going at one time. I had added embryodead's AI change for spice palaces in 1.7.1.2. He pointed out that it wasn't quite complete and suggested three more lines to add in the sdk code. I have incorporated that change. I guess this will have to be 1.7.1.3. I have lost track of which 1.7.2.x patches it may be compatible with; some of the patches use "spice corporations" and some use "spice palaces". This is compatible with any patch using "spice palaces".

The patch contains only cvgamecoredll.dll plus all of the source files changed since 1.7.

In related news, I have looked into the dynamic tech chooser. In order to make it work, only one small change to Dune Wars/assets/config/init.xml seems needed. When I load the mod using the dynamic tech chooser, I get errors about a missing function resetTechPrefs and about parsing init.xml at lines 114 and 115. The init.xml at lines 114 and 115 is calling resetTechPrefs, so these two problems are related. In your init.xml you can find the lines (the line numbers could be different):

Code:

	<event type="OnLoad" module="CvTechChooser" function="resetTechPrefs"/>
	<event type="GameStart" module="CvTechChooser" function="resetTechPrefs"/>

I commented out those two lines (xml commenting is  but you knew that). It seems to work fine. So I guess you can replace CvTechChooser once you make this small change in your init.xml. I tried it a little, and it seems to work fine.

giddion · Mar 27, 2010

It would be great if the first post in this thread included all the incremental patches or at least a link to the post for them.

davidlallen · Mar 27, 2010

Thanks for the suggestion. This thread is to facilitate interchange of temporary results between the developers. You are welcome to try out these patches and give us feedback; but the point is that these are not mainstream, documented, tested releases. When we have a release which is ready, it will be posted in the welcome thread and the download database.

timelord89 · Mar 27, 2010

The large number of techs may seem overwhelming at first, but after a few games and some time studying it, it is fine. I went most of a game without getting mysticism and the following techs and still did fine. I prefer more techs to less (Final Frontier), though each having a purpose and weight can make up for a shortfall.
It forces a choice between various technologies that improve infrastructure, buildings, and other stuff versus getting a high tech war machine (that you may not be able to support without the right infrastructure).
I quite enjoy playing and most of the time having tech to trade for with the AI, that never happens in other games, such as Fall From Heaven (and it's mods, which bugs the hell out of me). Being the technological leader is fun, but the challenge of keeping up is better.

And of course, all from my view.

Ahriman · Mar 27, 2010

Installed David's patch from post 1011.

Now I get a ton of python errors when trying to start a game.

AttributeError: DuneWars instance has no attribute 'dFreshl'

AttributeError: DuneWars instance has no attribute 'dSandU'

AttributeError: DuneWars instance has no attribute 'iBwine'

And then: (attached)

Python error log:

Spoiler :

davidlallen · Mar 27, 2010

Ahriman said:
Installed David's patch from post 1011. [...]
File "DuneWars", line 671, in DebugPrint
IOError: [Errno 13] Permission denied: 'c:\\stats.csv'

This has happened to you before, but the files in post 1011 cannot be responsible. The function DebugPrint has gotten turned back on. This is in the DuneWars.py python file, and there is no python in the files I posted. Please edit DuneWars.py to work around this by adding the line in red:

Code:

	# Print a debug message to file
	def DebugPrint(self, txt):
		[COLOR="Red"]return[/COLOR]
		f = open(self.DebugFilename, "a")
		f.write(txt + "\n")

Please make sure the line has the exact same white space as the following line, that is, it must start with two tabs. (Cut and paste the previous line and then edit, to make sure.)

Ahriman · Mar 27, 2010

Did this.
Try stating a game, during game creation the game freezes and gives (in a separate Window):
Program Execution problem:
This program has encountered a problem and needs to be closed. Do you wish to save a diagnostic file?

Have to End Task BTS.

Python log empty.

I can try reinstalling a clean version if you can't reproduce.

What is 1-7-1-3 installable over? You mentioned in post 1004 you were going to make a 1-7-2-4?

Perhaps we should just make a clean 1-7-3?

embryodead · Mar 28, 2010

You guys could probably make a good use a version control system like Git or Subversion. It'd take care of all code organization, keeping everything up-to-date.

Ahriman · Mar 28, 2010

Restarted everything, and it seems to work fine. How bizarre.

davidlallen · Mar 28, 2010

embryodead said:
You guys could probably make a good use a version control system like Git or Subversion.

Thanks for the suggestion. There is a lot of overhead in setting it up and using it, and it would probably prevent those who are not professional programmers from submitting much. The main problem right now is that I am not putting much time into my patches, so they have some new files but mostly old files, and they do not play together well with deliverator's patches.

incremental patch discussion

Graphical Hackificator

Tyrant

LivE LonG AnD PrOsPeR

Deity

Tyrant

Deity

Graphical Hackificator

Tyrant

Prince

Tyrant

Deity

Crusader

Deity

Chieftain

Tyrant

Attachments

Deity

Tyrant

Caliph

Tyrant

Deity

Similar threads