Installation Question

[Megalamon121]

This may ssem like a stupid question, but is GEM meant to be installed INSIDE the CiVUP folder? It seems like thats the instruction in the download instructions. -

"Right-click the .civ5mod file -> "7zip" -> "extract to Civ V Unofficial Patch"."

If I do that, I can't use the mod "The mod is missing required dependencies."

Do I do something wrong here, or just misreading the instructions?

 

[Naeven]

No,
Inside the mod folder, create 1 folder CIVUP, extract civup there. Create 1 folder GEM, extract gem there.

 

[Thalassicus]

Ooops! I copy-pasted the installation instructions yesterday and forgot to change that phrase. It should say "extract to G&K Enhanced Mod." I corrected that mistake now. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Megalamon121]

Also curious: has anyone ever seen this bug before?

Just got G&K and have added CiVUP, GEM, RED, Mech w/ Inf, Random city names. If there are known conflicts between those, pls let me know.

 

[Thalassicus]

Try it with just civup & gem first to see if that works, then add red. I believe people have said those work together. What does the "Mech w/Inf" mod do?

 

[Megalamon121]

After clearing both my cache and usermodata files, the bug has seemingly been fixed. It was one of those infamous "bizarre" random bugs Thal was talking about.

Furthermore:

1) I noticed the upgrade path goes Pikemen>Musket and Lancer>Landship. I though Lancers and Pikemen types were all rebuilt into a 'Anti-Mobile' role (Spear-Pike-Lancer-AT)?
Is this a bug, or was I mistaken?
2) My start-off warriors have an apparent (according to the maintenance payment in the financials) maint of 1 gpt, whereas (according to the city production list) it should be 6. Other example: a captured Barb Archer only has a maint of 2 gpt. Barb hordes are supposed to cost more than standard units, so shouldn't a captured archer be more like 6 or 7 gpt?

 

[mystikx21]

1) That's intended. The GK set up of the anti-mobile role is a sound role, but the upgrade path was illogical and made the setup flawed. Units went from mobile to immobile, resource-requirements to none, and back for both (the line also included helicopters). Lancers were re-tasked as anti-dragoon rather than anti-mobile overall and as hit-run strikers with attack bonuses and defence penalties.

 

[Thalassicus]

Are you playing on a slower gamespeed? Others have reported unit maintenance works unexpectedly on slow speeds. I'll do some testing when I have time. The game core handles unit maintenance, so the actual gameplay effect should work correctly.

 

[Naeven]

I always play marathon and I have not noticed this when I'm only using Civup & GEM.
I have however noticed lots of different yields bug out on some other mod maps, with Civup & GEM.

 

[mystikx21]

Naeven, the unit upkeep issue is mostly noticeable in the later stages of the game when per unit costs are significantly higher than in the early game. It starts being noticed when there's a lot of units running around with double digit unit upkeep (cavalry, artillery, rifles, destroyers).

Many games can (effectively) end before that point and most can be played with far fewer units. Try deleting units and monitor the change in upkeep cost in the UI treasury display for unit costs. It should shift by some 2x factor over what the unit was intended to cost in the mod (if the mod now displays the unit cost in marathon mode, it should shift by that amount at least, I have been traveling and haven't had time to test the new versions).

 

[Naeven]

EDIT, NVM tested it and it's just like hes describing on marathon.
Tho, should warriors really cost 6gpt on marathon? That's pretty harsh like.

 

[mystikx21]

I don't think unit upkeep should be going up in slower game speeds (building upkeep doesn't?), no. But if it's in the game core, it's going to take a while to fix.

At the moment, having a distinct unit upkeep cost is a decent start but it really, really encourages using only a handful of fully upgraded units on slower speeds (without a massive economy).

 

[Naeven]

That's the "bugg" tho, the tooltip shows 3xgpt when your building it (not in the tech tree) But it actually only charges you the normal (2gpt for warrior).

I also agree, the upkeep shouldn't be higher on higher speed.

On the subject, how exactly does the unit upkeep interact with the supply limit in GEM? Penalty if you go above?

 

[Thalassicus]

Actually, now that I think about it, I could manually reverse the unit maintenance slow-speed multiplier when calculating player income. This might cause some funky behavior with gold-per-turn trades with AIs since I'll be doing it outside the game core.

 

[Megalamon121]

I've tested it (on Marathon, at least) all unit maintenances are exactly 1/6 the tooltip. Exa: Warriors still pay out at 1 gpt, not 6. My Landsknecht pay out at 21 gpt (tooltip), but actually at 3.5.

Also, Landsknecht are (according to the tooltip) cheaper than Pikemen, yet they cost twice the production, and since they pay out over twice what Spearmen did (1.5gpt), I'm assuming they're more in that way too.

 

[Thalassicus]

Wait, what? I think I misunderstood the problem. I thought someone said elsewhere that slower game speeds increase unit maintenance costs. Marathon has a 300% gold modifier, so I assumed I should apply that to maintenance.

On normal speed unit maintenance looks like this:

2 worker, warrior, archer, sentinel, trireme
3 spear, chariot, bowman, liburna
5 horse, sword

From what you're saying, it sounds like marathon actually reduces unit maintenance by half.! I double-checked the Gamespeeds table and everything on marathon is a factor of 3 or 1/3. This is very odd!!

I should get some sleep... brain... not working...

 

[mystikx21]

Marathon speed increases unit upkeep over time it looks like. It starts at the min levels used in standard, or close enough not to notice. It then reaches a point (around the time you'd get the more expensive industrial era units) that it is running 2x or so higher, and keeps climbing.

Example: A worker in the early-mid game may be 2 and later, when disbanded, it could be running at around 5 .

It's possible the inflation effect is happening in standard games too, but most people aren't playing games that long.

I'm not sure if this impacts building upkeep either. It is possible, but no buildings have substantial upkeep versus industrial+ era units running at double digits per to where I'd notice much change in net gold for selling it off if it were doubled or even tripled.

I'm not sure this should be intended in either case that a slower game speed works this way as it doesn't change the raw value of buildings, tiles, most policies, and only changes units in relative speed.

 

[Thalassicus]

Ahh! There are values for "inflation" in the game files, though I'd mistakenly assumed they did nothing. Hmm! I wonder if that's it, and if that affects anything other than maintenance costs... if not, it'd be simple to fix by setting the inflation to 0.

Try adding this line to the top of GEC_End.sql and see what happens:

UPDATE GameSpeeds SET InflationPercent = 0;

 

[mystikx21]

I'll give that a try.

What needs undone to set the display cost back to standard (to check it)?

 

[mystikx21]

Should we also be removing the inflation offset variable at the same time (I'm not sure what that does either)?

Edit: upon testing. Based on my calculations, this is what appears to be happening: upkeep costs are running after unit costs are adjusted, but the tooltip is (somehow) displaying at default levels. Rifles are costing 28 upkeep on marathon speed, which is precisely what they would cost if they were 3x cost and everything else held stable. Inflation either isn't a factor. Or if it is, it's not significant. It's displaying (if you take out the gamespeed adjustment) at 13.

Buildings appeared to be impacted slightly such that costs were predictable. Building upkeep is set however independently of cost, so if inflation is acting upon it, the change is standard across game speeds and ultimately minimal as nothing costs very much to start with.

Unit upkeep changes based on game speeds because unit costs go up or down (and could be then impacted by inflation). If upkeep calculations are running after game speed affects things, that could explain why a later game unit is roughly 2x cost in marathon as about half of the upkeep formula is cost based. It would not be 3x as unit upkeep is significantly influenced by unit strength, which is fixed. This would also be why earlier game units are not as noticeable as there's not as much difference in the cost function for a scout (120) or warrior (140), versus a rifle (800) on which to act.

It's not obviously clear why the tooltip isn't automatically updating to reflect the game speed cost adjustment, but the adjusted formula for display was itself incorrect. I'm not liking the idea of setting the upkeep manually if there is not some kind of automatic way to adjust this. I have so far been unable to make the formula respect the game speed and display an accurate total on my end.