K-Mod: Far Beyond the Sword
- Thread starter karadoc
- Start date
I have a comment on the civics. Serfdom is really useful now. Especially with the Perfect World 2 map script as it generates large plains regions causing my to build lots of farms. I find that it is hands down the best labor civic. I see no reason to switch to Emancipation other then the silly AI all switching to it, causing my happiness to spiral out of control.
wolkenwand
Chieftain
Karadoc, i think i have found a bug. I have attached a save file. Near Philadelpia city there is a worker that building a plantation on sugar. It build like normal, but in every turn the work will keep ask what to do until plantation is built. The correct behavior i think is it should keep working on plantation and not asking a job until player cancelled it action or it finished it previous job.
Karadoc: I use the city summary screen to glance for happiness, hammers and health overview. I use the column sort feature and then click in and out of cities using the shortcut on the F1 screen, for example to build forges in high hammer cities.
The problem is that the screen forgets the column sort preference and I need to keep re-sorting. Is this something that you would consider changing so that column focus is remembered if the enter city screen button is selected from the city overview screen? I appreciate why the screen should reset to a default city size sort on opening afresh.
The problem is that the screen forgets the column sort preference and I need to keep re-sorting. Is this something that you would consider changing so that column focus is remembered if the enter city screen button is selected from the city overview screen? I appreciate why the screen should reset to a default city size sort on opening afresh.
noto2
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,715
@wolkenwand: Are you at war? Is there a barbarian unit near that worker or a barbarian city? If the answer to any of these questions is yes it is probably not a bug. If your worker is on the border of a barb city or civ with whom you're at war, it will behave that way. Also, if your worker is within striking range of a hostile unit it will behave that way.
wolkenwand
Chieftain
@noto2 no, i'm not at war and there is no hostile unit under my visibility range.
@anyone who knows
it's been awhile since i've played the unmodded game but since kmod, ive noticed that even aggressive leaders will found a religion, don't recall lads like shaka doing that before, maybe i never paid attention. just wondering has the ai "personality"/traits whatever has been changed to increase the likelihood of non-spiritual types going for religious techs? and also does the ai understand the potential value of a holy city, making such cities/civs that own one a more attractive target to the ai? or is only when they get that crusade quest/event thingy that they will especially target one. actually, does the ai actually receive quests?? harbour master etc
it's been awhile since i've played the unmodded game but since kmod, ive noticed that even aggressive leaders will found a religion, don't recall lads like shaka doing that before, maybe i never paid attention. just wondering has the ai "personality"/traits whatever has been changed to increase the likelihood of non-spiritual types going for religious techs? and also does the ai understand the potential value of a holy city, making such cities/civs that own one a more attractive target to the ai? or is only when they get that crusade quest/event thingy that they will especially target one. actually, does the ai actually receive quests?? harbour master etc
Um the Muse
King
I've noticed that new guys are winning the race too, but I think that what you're seeing is the religious guys being slower to get the religion. I've noticed several games where I have a bunch of religious guys, all of whom failed to found a religion.
AI's do indeed get quests. They've beaten me to them before (not that I ever seriously tried; part of the reason that I turn them off).
Turning the conversation back to culture spread through espionage: the vanilla system was not that important because it had such limited scope. If you're going to expand the scope, though, that mission is going to be really handy.
It not only makes missions cheaper and makes it possible to flip cities through espionage, you can use it to get border pops before a city comes out of revolt. That has important implications for a warmonger or for winning weird cultural victories. I think using the mission for border pops makes sense, but using it to get a city to Legendary Culture status is silly. Maybe you should put a cap on how much culture you can add?
AI's do indeed get quests. They've beaten me to them before (not that I ever seriously tried; part of the reason that I turn them off).
Turning the conversation back to culture spread through espionage: the vanilla system was not that important because it had such limited scope. If you're going to expand the scope, though, that mission is going to be really handy.
It not only makes missions cheaper and makes it possible to flip cities through espionage, you can use it to get border pops before a city comes out of revolt. That has important implications for a warmonger or for winning weird cultural victories. I think using the mission for border pops makes sense, but using it to get a city to Legendary Culture status is silly. Maybe you should put a cap on how much culture you can add?
yeah i suppose so, i just assumed aggressive AIs, for example, prioritized military techs. my post was merely for curiosity's sake, i like everything karadoc has done with kmod. to echo NBAfan above, serfdom is now my fav civic in that section.
@Karadoc:
potential fault/bug(ish??). i just noticed that if i am at war with say, civA and civB (bear with me
) and then ask civC (who is also at war with civA but not civB) "why don't you attack...", in the diplomacy dialog i can also ask him to attack a city belonging to civB, even though he is not currently at war with them. on subsequent turns, i have not seen my ally declare war on this 4th party, so unless this is an alternative method for getting a civ to join a new war and in my case the ally was just ignoring my plea, is this not a bug in firaxis' code? seems unintuitive to me if it is intentional.
to clarify, i have checked this in unmodded civ and the same dialog option is present.
@Karadoc:
potential fault/bug(ish??). i just noticed that if i am at war with say, civA and civB (bear with me
) and then ask civC (who is also at war with civA but not civB) "why don't you attack...", in the diplomacy dialog i can also ask him to attack a city belonging to civB, even though he is not currently at war with them. on subsequent turns, i have not seen my ally declare war on this 4th party, so unless this is an alternative method for getting a civ to join a new war and in my case the ally was just ignoring my plea, is this not a bug in firaxis' code? seems unintuitive to me if it is intentional.to clarify, i have checked this in unmodded civ and the same dialog option is present.
@wolkenwand, satrapper is right. The worker is standing right next to barbarian borders. The only bit of oddness in that example is that you don't actually have vision of the barbarian warrior which is waking your worker. (I recently changed it so that borders don't interrupt the workers. It is indeed the unseen warrior which is waking them.)
Just imagine the worker saying "my spider sense is tingling" or something like that. -- I could take the spider sense away, but I'm concerned that automated workers might feel the loss strongly... (note: This behaviour is the same in the unmodded game.)
Regarding serfdom. It's pretty strong, I know. But I like it. I reckon it's working just as I had hoped. What I hoped was basically this:
It's been suggested that the AI is "silly" for switching to emancipation... well, I happen to think that the AI's choice of civics is actually pretty good in the recent versions of this mod! If adopting emancipation can force you to switch away from your best civic, then that doesn't seem so silly to me anyway.
The AI won't always go for emancipation in K-Mod. They calculate how much benefit they are likely to get from each civic, and they choose the best one. The main benefit they seen in emancipation is that it gives unhappiness to everyone else - so it's no accident that they are forcing you out of serfdom.
Regarding the pause button in the diplomacy screen. I don't really know anything about that. (I never use pause in the games I play.) -- But I just glanced at some of the code, and I think it will probably be possible to get some kind of pause / unpause functionality working in the diplomacy screen. I'll look into it a bit later.
Regarding the founding of religions. I think Um the Muse is probably right that it's the religious civs being a bit slower rather than the military civs being faster.
I've changed a lot of stuff in the AI's evaluation of techs, and so that's almost certainly had an indirect effect on who's likely to get a religion. The religious civs certainly do have a much higher chance of aiming for an early religion, but they will often prefer to get some worker techs first. Because of that, they sometimes miss out. -- That said, I've just had three games in a row where I started next to Gandhi, and he got Hinduism every time. So I think it's working pretty well.
In any case, the option shouldn't even be available - and I'll certainly look into changing that. I'm also considering tightening the conditions on the "why don't you attack..." thing. Why the hell would some other independent civ be taking order from you about where it should attack? That doesn't make sense to me... I think I'll change it so that it is only available for vassals, permanent allies, and perhaps friendly civs with a common war. What do you think?
In other news, I spent most of yesterday working on this - and I think I've got it working pretty well now. I'm looking forward to playing a game where the combat animations aren't so repetitive and predictable. The newly choreographed battles still aren't a blow-for-blow representation of the combat log, but they do at least match the ordering and timing of the teams taking damage - squashed into a battle which is of similar duration to the original battle animations.
Just imagine the worker saying "my spider sense is tingling" or something like that. -- I could take the spider sense away, but I'm concerned that automated workers might feel the loss strongly... (note: This behaviour is the same in the unmodded game.)
Regarding serfdom. It's pretty strong, I know. But I like it. I reckon it's working just as I had hoped. What I hoped was basically this:
- As the game progresses, there is a dominant labour civic which changes over the course of the game. It basically goes slavery -> serfdom -> emancipation.
- Serfdom needs to be strong enough so that people will switch out of slavery at least some of the time, but not so strong that no one will ever switch to emancipation or caste system.
- In the mid-to-late game, the best labour civic should be situational. In low-food environments, serfdom will be the best. In low-productivity / high-food environments, caste system will be the best. In balanced environments, one can afford to switch to emancipation to put pressure on the other civs (and to get more towns, of course).
It's been suggested that the AI is "silly" for switching to emancipation... well, I happen to think that the AI's choice of civics is actually pretty good in the recent versions of this mod! If adopting emancipation can force you to switch away from your best civic, then that doesn't seem so silly to me anyway.
The AI won't always go for emancipation in K-Mod. They calculate how much benefit they are likely to get from each civic, and they choose the best one. The main benefit they seen in emancipation is that it gives unhappiness to everyone else - so it's no accident that they are forcing you out of serfdom.Regarding the pause button in the diplomacy screen. I don't really know anything about that. (I never use pause in the games I play.) -- But I just glanced at some of the code, and I think it will probably be possible to get some kind of pause / unpause functionality working in the diplomacy screen. I'll look into it a bit later.
Regarding the founding of religions. I think Um the Muse is probably right that it's the religious civs being a bit slower rather than the military civs being faster.
I've changed a lot of stuff in the AI's evaluation of techs, and so that's almost certainly had an indirect effect on who's likely to get a religion. The religious civs certainly do have a much higher chance of aiming for an early religion, but they will often prefer to get some worker techs first. Because of that, they sometimes miss out. -- That said, I've just had three games in a row where I started next to Gandhi, and he got Hinduism every time. So I think it's working pretty well.
That sounds like bug to me. I actually thought the "why don't you attack... option was only available if the civ was your vassal or permanent ally! But I just tested it, and what you say is true. They don't need to be your ally or anything like that, and you can ask them to target cities which aren't even their enemy. Based on what I know about how the AI chooses where to attack, I'd say telling them to attack a city like that probably won't have much effect. They certainly aren't going to declare war just to get to it - but they might choose attack other cities in that region a bit more.@Karadoc:
potential fault/bug(ish??). i just noticed that if i am at war with say, civA and civB (bear with me
to clarify, i have checked this in unmodded civ and the same dialog option is present.
In any case, the option shouldn't even be available - and I'll certainly look into changing that. I'm also considering tightening the conditions on the "why don't you attack..." thing. Why the hell would some other independent civ be taking order from you about where it should attack? That doesn't make sense to me... I think I'll change it so that it is only available for vassals, permanent allies, and perhaps friendly civs with a common war. What do you think?
In other news, I spent most of yesterday working on this - and I think I've got it working pretty well now. I'm looking forward to playing a game where the combat animations aren't so repetitive and predictable.
The newly choreographed battles still aren't a blow-for-blow representation of the combat log, but they do at least match the ordering and timing of the teams taking damage - squashed into a battle which is of similar duration to the original battle animations.
wolkenwand
Chieftain
Hey there is a barbarian city near my worker 
didn't see that. Sorry for this unclarity guys, i should be more careful next time when reporting something 
About the spider sense, it will be more realistic when it doesn't exist, because the worker doesn't know if there is a barbarian in that place in the first time. But like you say karadoc, the spider sense really help the automated worker
didn't see that. Sorry for this unclarity guys, i should be more careful next time when reporting something About the spider sense, it will be more realistic when it doesn't exist, because the worker doesn't know if there is a barbarian in that place in the first time. But like you say karadoc, the spider sense really help the automated worker
I agree and disagree with u. I think its a bug too (for reason u said) but it shouldnt be limited to friends and permanent allies/vassals. If civA asks me to attack civB and i agree, shouldnt we be a temporary war ally no matter if we have bad relations? Shouldnt we be able to coordinate our war plans? On the other hand if i see civs A and B fighting and i wanna profit from that by attacking either civ A or B and im not friendly with any of them then i say there shouldnt be any support cus its pure poaching of land at that moment. But if that scenario assumes im friends with civ A and im attacking civ B then it could be considered as if im trying to help my friends out.
heh wolkenwand, i wouldn't worry about it, i think it's safe to say we all miss obvious things like that on occasion, i know i do!
@Karadoc
yep, thats exactly how i would expect the ask to attack dialog to work. i approve of stuff working in a logical fashion. certainly have it for vassals and permanent allies anyway. but for ratios of cautious or less or whatever, a rebuff would be nice or the option just not there unless the other civ really likes you. i would't worry about it too much anyway, tis a minor issue, most people prob never even notice the dialog.
i really like that idea of combat animations being more representative of what goes on under the hood! presently i find there's a feeling of disconnection between the battle-animation and the final outcome with little sense of how the battle is going.
@Karadoc
yep, thats exactly how i would expect the ask to attack dialog to work. i approve of stuff working in a logical fashion. certainly have it for vassals and permanent allies anyway. but for ratios of cautious or less or whatever, a rebuff would be nice or the option just not there unless the other civ really likes you. i would't worry about it too much anyway, tis a minor issue, most people prob never even notice the dialog.
i really like that idea of combat animations being more representative of what goes on under the hood! presently i find there's a feeling of disconnection between the battle-animation and the final outcome with little sense of how the battle is going.
@en dotter
man this civA/civB stuff makes for confusing reading. i need coffee. i think you took up my/karadoc's posts incorrectly?? what you say is perfectly right. but there's an issue with a 4th civ involved, ha just read my first post on the problem, i'm barely able to form a coherant point at the moment.
man this civA/civB stuff makes for confusing reading. i need coffee. i think you took up my/karadoc's posts incorrectly?? what you say is perfectly right. but there's an issue with a 4th civ involved, ha just read my first post on the problem, i'm barely able to form a coherant point at the moment.
sorry for basically taking up a half a page with my wittering
a more serious response to en dotter, yeah you're right enough but if the civ you ask to do this particular attack doesn't like you, i feel that a realistic response would be for them to tell you to bugger off (or the option simply not present), they clearly have reasons for disliking you in the first place and if they just submitted to your will in such cases then it is probably to your advantage rather than theirs. ah heck i lack the eloquence to put forward a proper argument, i'm sure you pick up my meaning.
a more serious response to en dotter, yeah you're right enough but if the civ you ask to do this particular attack doesn't like you, i feel that a realistic response would be for them to tell you to bugger off (or the option simply not present), they clearly have reasons for disliking you in the first place and if they just submitted to your will in such cases then it is probably to your advantage rather than theirs. ah heck i lack the eloquence to put forward a proper argument, i'm sure you pick up my meaning.
I don't think ordering other civs around would represent coordination - it's not coordination if one just tells the other what to do!
It would be great if there was a system to negotiate in advance who would get which cities and where to attack first, but that's probably too complicated to implement.
It would be great if there was a system to negotiate in advance who would get which cities and where to attack first, but that's probably too complicated to implement.
