[MODCOMP] Microbe2Microbiologist... well, sort of.

[TPEHEP]

Just glancing in on it, have you considered how you would ensure that certain things deny the possibility of selecting other things?

Not sure I understood the question correctly. The table was compiled on the basis of real scientific ideas about the sequence and connectedness of the formation of various characteristics of living things. Exceptions are only the final "technology" - such as bipedalism and a long throat, which in the context of the table directly affect the ancestors of man. All the "connections" and "requirements" in the table were made proceeding (close to) these views. Also checked the table for "dead loops" or "dead ends".

For example, on the left are the names of animals relevant to the occurrence of a particular fragment.

P.s I apologize for my English - I use a translator.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Not sure I understood the question correctly. The table was compiled on the basis of real scientific ideas about the sequence and connectedness of the formation of various characteristics of living things. Exceptions are only the final "technology" - such as bipedalism and a long throat, which in the context of the table directly affect the ancestors of man. All the "connections" and "requirements" in the table were made proceeding (close to) these views. Also checked the table for "dead loops" or "dead ends".

For example, on the left are the names of animals relevant to the occurrence of a particular fragment.

P.s I apologize for my English - I use a translator.

What I'm asking is... because a species has x trait, it's probably impossible for it to have y trait as a result.

A mermaid has a tail fin rather than legs (unless you say they shift to legs if they get dry). Because they took the tail fin, they won't have legs unless they shift to that later on. A creature cannot be both warm blooded and cold blooded. So have you generated an incompatibility network where one choice denies the ability to choose another?

 

[TPEHEP]

What I'm asking is... because a species has x trait, it's probably impossible for it to have y trait as a result.

A mermaid has a tail fin rather than legs (unless you say they shift to legs if they get dry). Because they took the tail fin, they won't have legs unless they shift to that later on. A creature cannot be both warm blooded and cold blooded. So have you generated an incompatibility network where one choice denies the ability to choose another?

A. No. This table is intended to reflect the "real" evolution of species. At the moment, there are no mutual exceptions. There are no mermaids, dead-end branches as evolutionary traits and other things. Those. A mermaid unit can be inserted into any invention, which becomes available upon the invention of such a complex of features, but the features themselves do not imply "mermaidism".

As in C2C there is, for example, "electronics", it requires such x and y, it reveals such and such things, but does not imply, for example, the impossibility of "mechanics" or the presence of "electronic robots" as a unit.

Those. All the "technologies" in the table must be explored to gain access to the final one - "nomadism", which C2C predicts. All of them are tested so as not to create closed cycles when, for example, A requires B, B requires C, and C requires A.

 

[Thunderbrd]

A. No. This table is intended to reflect the "real" evolution of species. At the moment, there are no mutual exceptions. There are no mermaids, dead-end branches as evolutionary traits and other things. Those. A mermaid unit can be inserted into any invention, which becomes available upon the invention of such a complex of features, but the features themselves do not imply "mermaidism".

As in C2C there is, for example, "electronics", it requires such x and y, it reveals such and such things, but does not imply, for example, the impossibility of "mechanics" or the presence of "electronic robots" as a unit.

Those. All the "technologies" in the table must be explored to gain access to the final one - "nomadism", which C2C predicts. All of them are tested so as not to create closed cycles when, for example, A requires B, B requires C, and C requires A.

So basically this is more setup as 'the' direct path for human development, rather than a more multi-species option tree?

 

[TPEHEP]

So basically this is more setup as 'the' direct path for human development, rather than a more multi-species option tree?

*nods

The idea was to seamlessly include the table in the current technology tree as pre-eras.

Theoretically, nothing prevents you from finalizing it by simply including the appropriate units in the “technology” or adding the desired “technologies” like the “gas bubble”, “three-sex system” and so on because of the soreness of the imagination

 

[Thunderbrd]

It's an intriguing concept.

Have you determined any 'unit' proposals that would go with it?

Obviously all this is pre-city stuff so would really require some interesting tech development methods that would potentially relate a lot to what I'm planning for the nomadic stuff.

 

[TPEHEP]

It's an intriguing concept.

Have you determined any 'unit' proposals that would go with it?

Obviously all this is pre-city stuff so would really require some interesting tech development methods that would potentially relate a lot to what I'm planning for the nomadic stuff.

The columns on the left are “units”

 

[Thunderbrd]

The columns on the left are “units”

OH, I see. OK, so you're arranging this as if the player is kinda like an entire biome rather than just one species. That's really quite fascinating.

So I can see units going around and collecting 'commerce' for research and food for creating more of themselves (with some requiring food from feeding on a select group of other creatures while others just collect vegetable matter from the terrain/features - though I'm almost thinking there would need to be something more specific to define what they can and cannot get food from.) The commerce could go into the player total and spend towards research pretty much automatically - the rest of the commerces are pointless in this case. Enough food and the right tech and you could birth a mutation - the next earned creature type - from types that unit can give birth to. Upgrading would really be unnecessary I think...

I would think, however, that there could be some 'lair' based improvements that enable or speed up the commerce/food collection that could be purchased with hammer collection possibly?

hmm...

 

[TPEHEP]

OH, I see. OK, so you're arranging this as if the player is kinda like an entire biome rather than just one species. That's really quite fascinating.

I would think, however, that there could be some 'lair' based improvements that enable or speed up the commerce/food collection that could be purchased with hammer collection possibly?

hmm...

I assumed that “in the city” a player can “build” vegetation (the second column of the table is just offhand).

You can also theoretically use maps without vegetation at all from the start, the player will “build” forests and grass in "city radius", and after a certain year they will begin to appear as it is now in the game with forests.

 

[ecawilson]

That sounds like fun to me, but without the ability to explore you will still never meet another civ until you reach prehistoric. And exploration makes no sense in this part of history.

Don't get me wrong, this sounds good, but I wanted to mention another way to use this idea. Multimaps.

If one decides to start in the 'microbe' era (whatever eon you want to call it) instead of prehistoric, they start in a multimap that contains only their 'civ'. Not so much fun without competing species (barbarians) and random events, but it does do something else. When you reach the 'end' of the tech tree for this 'era', you will have made decisions (buildings, units, techs, plants, whatever) that influence your starting location. Maybe some subdued animals or an extra military unit, but more importantly the starting location. Based upon your decisions you may be more likely to have desert or jungle or grassland, based upon how you played the previous multimap. This could be done by the game either through the code cycling through maps and starting locations to find an appropriate one (such tools exist already on civfanatics) or by 'terraforming' the starting location already assigned to the player. In addition, the number of turns used to reach the 'end' will be used to decide the turn advantage you gain or lose compared to other civs (if you are fast but poorly developed, you will have your starting settler and nothing else appear many turns before the AI, but if you are slow the AI will have multiple turns of advantage over your starting turn but you might have X number of subdued animals with you, compare to Rhye's mod).

Now, exactly what the choices/production/tech/barbarians/events would be in this 'era' I don't know, and I think maybe even combat itself could be rethought (pillage sounds much more devastating, but maybe could take multiple turns... would animals 'defend' their homes from invasive species or would production be spent to try to 'wear out' the invading barbarian, such that pillage actually reduces HP of the attacker by a certain % and spending production in the 'city' replenishes the pillaged 'improvement' a certain amount, hopefully killing the pillager before the improvement is fully destroyed), but I think there are plenty of people with plenty of ideas to flesh this out. The problem really will be the opposite, keeping it short enough or interesting enough for people to be willing to play it (there are already complaints about prehistoric being 'too slow').

No matter how implemented, this idea feels like a natural extension to C2C, and would be a great ModMod.

 

[TPEHEP]

That sounds like fun to me, but without the ability to explore you will still never meet another civ until you reach prehistoric. And exploration makes no sense in this part of history.

That is why a little higher Thunderbrd talks about a nomadic start. The "city" of the player will move, picking up and, possibly, terraforming the environment. Multimapping overloads the already not the strongest game engine. Or force the use of small cramped maps.

But, this is just my opinion. I have given the table above to help anyone who wants to use it. If she helps you with your idea, I will only be glad.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I assumed that “in the city” a player can “build” vegetation (the second column of the table is just offhand).

You can also theoretically use maps without vegetation at all from the start, the player will “build” forests and grass in "city radius", and after a certain year they will begin to appear as it is now in the game with forests.

Not having looked quite closely enough perhaps, do you include vegetation as part of the 'tree'? Interesting... This could mean that even 'features' could be a sort of unit in a way, and they could naturally spread where conditions are ideal to do so. There would have to be some kind of 'yield' income from their existence I'd think. hmm... food for thought - and your plant eating units.

 

[Thunderbrd]

So here's a challenge I'm trying to wrap my head around. @Toffer90 or @raxo2222 can one of you guys help me to understand this better?

This modmod would require adding a few eras BEFORE prehistoric. That's... problematic even from a modular perspective right? How could this be done in an option or module? Or is it just really not possible do you think?

 

[Toffer90]

This modmod would require adding a few eras BEFORE prehistoric. That's... problematic even from a modular perspective right? How could this be done in an option or module? Or is it just really not possible do you think?

Probably possible to modularize earlier starting era's, but I wouldn't touch that challenge with a ten foot pole. ^^

We need to draw the line on what we are willing to optionalize in C2C. Some things are just so fundamental to have as it is in all circumstances that changing it causes all sort of headaches in too many modding areas.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Probably possible to modularize earlier starting era's, but I wouldn't touch that challenge with a ten foot pole. ^^

We need to draw the line on what we are willing to optionalize in C2C. Some things are just so fundamental to have as it is in all circumstances that changing it causes all sort of headaches in too many modding areas.

Yeah that's kinda my concern as I look at the challenge it would represent. It would be easier to take the dll and basically fundamentally write this out with its own assets entirely replacing what we have, then if and when the project gets to a point of fruition where it's truly blended we could consider ways to include it into the core interior somehow but trying to option or modmod right out the gate with new eras at the beginning of the tree seems pretty difficult from a lot of technical levels.

 

[raxo2222]

So here's a challenge I'm trying to wrap my head around. @Toffer90 or @raxo2222 can one of you guys help me to understand this better?

All Xgrids of existing techs would have to be moved, and all buildings/units would have to be recosted.

 

[TPEHEP]

All Xgrids of existing techs would have to be moved

It sounds worse than it really is. A couple of years ago I tried to “slide” all the techs just under this plate — when choosing the right sequence of actions (to shift through the auto-replace first x with the maximum number, gradually getting to the minimum) - it takes pure patience and a couple of hours.

and all buildings/units would have to be recosted.

I consider it unnecessary. We can abolish the "structures" of the "animal" era as we approach the era of reason, so that at the time of "nomadism" we get + - the same values of 1-2 hammers, 0 food, etc. directly in the "city". In the "animal" era, however, emphasis can be placed on the refinement of the area. The allocation of resources (now a great farmer), the planting of forests, cacti (now workers), the placement of herds of animals in the final third of the era (I don’t remember if it was now, it was a little earlier).

An increase of 1-2-3 of the population at the start of the game (nomadism) is not critical and should not seriously affect general mathematics, as the maximum will require a shift in the “start year”.

 

[Thunderbrd]

All Xgrids of existing techs would have to be moved, and all buildings/units would have to be recosted.

The recosting wouldn't necessarily have to be done - it would all work a bit differently before the Prehistoric era begins anyhow - it would just need to be 'offset' based on how many xgrid shifts the new eras take up.

It sounds worse than it really is. A couple of years ago I tried to “slide” all the techs just under this plate — when choosing the right sequence of actions (to shift through the auto-replace first x with the maximum number, gradually getting to the minimum) - it takes pure patience and a couple of hours.

Yeah in terms of actually setting them in place - the issue is the question of if it would be adopted by the core and then concealed by option if the option isn't on - it would be best if it could be developed in its own environment first and during that time, the core game environment is shifting as well so the work would basically almost have to be done a few times before it was fully adapted into the game and that's IF we could get it to be fully workable and as engaging as hoped. There's a lot of unique things to consider with this. I could offer some support but my priority is still the core game until that's manifested the vision I'm developing it towards.

This IS a pretty cool design concept though.