Larger Worlds (Abandonded) 2.31

[ITcore]

I'll take a look at it when I'm back home tonight, I haven't had a chance to test things out since the update but it's normally not a big deal.

The game will load and all that but the logs return the following errors:

Database log:
[2407326.547] [Configuration] ERROR: UNIQUE constraint failed: MapSizes.Domain, MapSizes.MapSizeType
[2407326.547] [Configuration]: While executing - 'insert into MapSizes('MapSizeType', 'Name', 'Description', 'MinPlayers', 'MaxPlayers', 'DefaultPlayers', 'MinCityStates', 'MaxCityStates', 'DefaultCityStates', 'SortIndex') values (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?);'
[2407326.567] [Configuration]: In XMLSerializer while inserting row into table insert into MapSizes('MapSizeType', 'Name', 'Description', 'MinPlayers', 'MaxPlayers', 'DefaultPlayers', 'MinCityStates', 'MaxCityStates', 'DefaultCityStates', 'SortIndex') with values (MAPSIZE_ENORMOUS, Enormous, Enormous map for 16 players, 2, 24, 16, 0, 30, 24, 80, ).
[2407326.567] [Configuration]: In XMLSerializer while updating table MapSizes from file MapSizes.xml.
[2407326.567] [Configuration] ERROR: UNIQUE constraint failed: MapSizes.Domain, MapSizes.MapSizeType

Modding log:
[2407326.547] Status: ModdingUpdateConfigurationDatabase - Loading Configuration/MapSizes.xml
[2407326.567] Warning: ModdingUpdateConfigurationDatabase - Error Loading XML.

 

[BrokenSky]

Another question about fertility; is it possible for the fertility of a site to be dependent on the civ?
Egypt, for example, benefits more than average for desert and floodplane tiles, so might recieve increased fertility for tiles close to floodplane tiles, while australia might recieve a higher fertility bonus to coast tiles and to tile close to sheep, cattle and horses.

 

[Leyrann]

Another question about fertility; is it possible for the fertility of a site to be dependent on the civ?
Egypt, for example, benefits more than average for desert and floodplane tiles, so might recieve increased fertility for tiles close to floodplane tiles, while australia might recieve a higher fertility bonus to coast tiles and to tile close to sheep, cattle and horses.

This is actually handled by Start Bias. Egypt has a higher chance to start near flood plains, England has a higher chance to start near coast, etc.

 

[BrokenSky]

This is actually handled by Start Bias. Egypt has a higher chance to start near flood plains, England has a higher chance to start near coast, etc.

True, but it might be better to do it like this instead or as well. There are several civs (most of whom have unique improvements) who benefit from certain starting conditions in a way other civs don't, so using start bias won't find them a great position for their special bonuses. Again Australia springs to mind, mostly because their bonuses mean that they have a very different idea of a perfect start to most civs; for example their bonuses from high appeal mean they benefit more from woods and coast and less from mine-able or quarried resources, their coast bonus to housing also means they get a lot of value from starting on coast, even though it's normally not very good if there are arn't sea resources, and their improvement makes desert ok and flat plains/grassland good, but can't be built on hills (except desert hills).

Basically I feel like combining fetility and start bias might be worth it, since if the current method first works our fertile locations, then asigns them via start bias, civs with specialist criteria get penalised.

 

[Regul]

Actually I can't get to map generation, as by hitting start I'm back in lobby. Other mods active (no YnAEM, as it doesn't work).

 

[skodkim]

Your description says that the scrips modify the starting locations but does this also affect the distribution of Civ/minor civs on the maps? I hate how most of the time everybody's cramped up in one part while other parts seem to have large areas with only a few players.

\Skodkim

 

[ctudor]

is this compatible with the new persia and macedonia update?

 

[Leyrann]

is this compatible with the new persia and macedonia update?

I've been running it without problem, so most likely yes.

Also don't see any reason why it shouldn't work, but I'm not an expert on modding so I might every well miss something.

Should mention though that at least Detailed Worlds and maybe also this one break the Outback Tycoon scenario in at least some cases, causing no gold to spawn.

 

[Regul]

Best map mod so far. Can't wait to see it on Steam Workshop.

 

[DanaLea]

CAn anyone tell me the difference between this mod (and it's companion Detailed Worlds) and the YnAMP mod (and it's add-ons)? I am wanting more interesting random maps and not maps of our planet.

 

[ITcore]

CAn anyone tell me the difference between this mod (and it's companion Detailed Worlds) and the YnAMP mod (and it's add-ons)? I am wanting more interesting random maps and not maps of our planet.

YNAMP is strictly a collection of Earth maps. It contains its own larger map code so don't use YNAMP with Larger/Detailed Worlds.

 

[heinous_hat]

CAn anyone tell me the difference between this mod (and it's companion Detailed Worlds) and the YnAMP mod (and it's add-ons)? I am wanting more interesting random maps and not maps of our planet.

YNAMP is strictly a collection of Earth maps. It contains its own larger map code so don't use YNAMP with Larger/Detailed Worlds.

I wouldn't quite put it that way... there several nice features in YNAMP that apply equally (or specifically) to random maps. The larger sizes; the 2:1 aspect ratio option for small through enormous sizes; ice and land separation toggle; relative cultural start positions; adjusted start positions. I use it primarily for these features, without touching the earth maps.

Larger Worlds does do distance scaling by #of players, which I think was unique. But YnAMP has been updated continuously and covers a lot of ground as far as start plot functions. Definitely do not use these together... they both replace ASP functions.

Detailed Worlds had a number of customized vanilla map scripts and utilities, which I think ITcore has updated in the other thread. You might be able to use those alongside YnAMP.

 

[Crusader2010]

Hello,

I'm getting the following runtime error when trying this mod under Rise&Fall. I'm trying to play a game on a Continents map with Enormous size (everything else on standard).

Runtime Error: bad argument #2 to 'func' (integer expected, got no value)
stack traceback:
    [C]: in function 'func'
    C:\...\Mods\Larger Worlds\Maps\Utility\AssignStartingPlots.lua:710: in function 'AssignStartingPlots:__WeightedFertility'
    C:\...\Mods\Larger Worlds\Maps\Utility\AssignStartingPlots.lua:346: in function 'AssignStartingPlots:__SetStartMajor'
    C:\...\Mods\Larger Worlds\Maps\Utility\AssignStartingPlots.lua:172: in function 'AssignStartingPlots:__InitStartingData'
    C:\...\Mods\Larger Worlds\Maps\Utility\AssignStartingPlots.lua:79: in function 'AssignStartingPlots.Create'
    F:\Games\Sid Meier's Civilization VI\Base\Assets\Maps\Continents.lua:107: in function 'GenerateMap'
    [C]: in function '(anonymous)'
Lua callstack:

EDIT: I looked over the file inside \Mods\Larger Worlds\Maps\Utility and made a few changes (see the attachment). Seems that the error from above was likely from another mod that is not compatible with R&F.

Nevertheless, "AssignStartingPlots.lua" was generating some runtime errors in the Lua.log and now it seems to be fine. Will test further.


Thanks

 

[Leyrann]

This mod doesn't get updated anymore so it might very well break things. Last update was for the 2017 spring patch.

 

[BrokenSky]

Thanks for the fix crusader : )

 

[Crusader2010]

Thanks for the fix crusader : )

My pleasure

@Leyrann: I'm using this mod with the quick fix from above and it's been working properly. Usually I like playing on very large maps with very slow research speeds, etc. I even increased the minimum distance between starting plots for the civs (in my iteration) and the size of the enormous map (made it something like 192x96).

 

[brubie]

For some reason when I run this mod, the only city-state that spawns is Lisbon. I'm using just this mod with the quick fix from above. Any ideas on how to fix this? the code is way too intimidating.

 

[Crusader2010]

For some reason when I run this mod, the only city-state that spawns is Lisbon. I'm using just this mod with the quick fix from above. Any ideas on how to fix this? the code is way too intimidating.

The only reason I can think of to generate this issue is trying to have too many civs+city states on a map that is too small. The scripts cannot find proper placement tiles for all of them. Try reducing the (total) number of civs, taking into account the map size too.

PS: i'm playing with a small-ish number of opponents (6-7-8) and 5-6 city states, on the largest map. I've modified my local script to increase the starting distance between opponents, too (I hate that all of the Civ games force you into an EU4 style of conflict each and every time, where most of the map is filled by civs that have border friction with each-other - way too much clutter, especially with the stupid diplomatic AI that we have now). Considering this, I didn't have issues in any map that I played. If you try to spawn 30 civs and 12 city states, probably it's not going to be able to do it.

 

[Seven05]

I wish I had the time to keep two mods updated again, I haven't even looked at this one yet but I fixed my other mod. I'm guessing that people still aren't happy with the Firaxis update to starting plots?

Thanks for posting that fix @Crusader2010

 

[Crusader2010]

@Seven05: not sure what the change was but I always hated how a Civ game went (everyone extremely close by, wars starting quickly, end game = everyone hating everyone). For this reason I'm (again) fed up with Civ6 and lost interest in modding it a bit (was working on a mini modpack, with the best parts from several mods, updated and working together properly). The way diplomacy works in this game is really killing my neurons and I cannot fathom to play it again for some time.

In my opinion, assigning starting plots to civs is done wrongly from the get-go... When you press "generate" with 20 civs and 10 city states on a 192x96 map (for example), the first thing that should be done is to get those 30 civs placed properly, then generate the map around them. So, if I wanted to have 20 tiles between each of the 20 civs, I'd try placing them in different patterns (elliptical, rectangular, concentric circles/ellipses, concentric rectangles, etc), because it's not like we have too many options anyway, considering that the map IS a rectangle. Or, at least, place as many civs as possible within 20 tiles of the rest, then, if forced, place the rest closer (medians from the closest surrounding civs). After that, for each civ/city state, within a radius of 6? tiles around them, place enough luxuries (and whatever) in order for everyone to have a balanced start. This is the default option. Rich starts and such should simply add/remove stuff etc.

Afterwards, and only then, generate the rest of the map (randomly). Do a final check such that no civ is land locked and that they have enough land, etc. If any is found this way, clear 1-2 paths by removing those specific mountains or by filling up ocean/lake tiles with hard terrain. How this is done should depend on the type of map chosen (fractals/continents/islands/etc).

The way this is done now means we're forced to be grasping at straws. We have a map generated, then it tries to place the civs. If not enough/proper/etc tiles are found, you get less city states to spawn and so on. The distance between starting tiles is increased/decreased dynamically based on some factors, but some limits do exist (e.g. I don't see how, for example, 40 civs could be placed on a 156/78 map (or whatever), with 15-20 tiles between each other).

I would be very much interested in the possibility of making a mod that changes this behavior, yet I'm not sure it's possible.

Anyway, sorry for hijacking the discussion