New Buildings Discussion

[RidetheSpiral23]

Ok. I generally find I don't need them in prehistoric (not all of them anyway), but I do need them before they go obsolete in later (but not much later) eras. As such I think they are ok where they are, though it wouldn't be a problem if thy were pushed a bit later.

*meant diety to dirty, stupid autocorrect*

Later today I'll probably get that point where i need them. I'm trying to play a game through as far as I can to check for bugs and balancing issues. It might not be a bad idea to move them back. I just feel its un-civ like not to have to battle/watch out for max population growth due to sickness/happiness.

EDIT also it doesnt seem like the AI is building enough military units in prehistoric nor are they being agressive in any way shape or form.

 

[Koshling]

*meant diety to dirty, stupid autocorrect*

Later today I'll probably get that point where i need them. I'm trying to play a game through as far as I can to check for bugs and balancing issues. It might not be a bad idea to move them back. I just feel its un-civ like not to have to battle/watch out for max population growth due to sickness/happiness.

EDIT also it doesnt seem like the AI is building enough military units in prehistoric nor are they being agressive in any way shape or form.

They will generally prefer to colonize unoccupied area (if its reasonably attractive) rather than spend on war preparations. You should see the aggressiveness rise significantly once spare space is getting full.

 

[Koshling]

@Hydro/DH/CivPlayer8 (mostly) - some buildings have prereq civics listed but do NOT specify bRequiresActiveCivics as 1. Such buildings require the prereq civic to be in place to build them, but they stay active when you lose the civic.

Is this intended? If so why?

Example - the Forum - require republic (to build), but stays active when you lose Republic.

Note - at the very lest this distinction needs to be apparent in the Pedia (which just says 'requires Republic')

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

@Hydro/DH/CivPlayer8 (mostly) - some buildings have prereq civics listed but do NOT specify bRequiresActiveCivics as 1. Such buildings require the prereq civic to be in place to build them, but they stay active when you lose the civic.

Is this intended? If so why?

Example - the Forum - require republic (to build), but stays active when you lose Republic.

Note - at the very lest this distinction needs to be apparent in the Pedia (which just says 'requires Republic')

It would have been nice to know that there were two tags and what they meant when combined In fact would it not have been better if it was a list which had the civic and active flag so you could say needs "X civic active to be active" or "Y civic active to build but stays active" it would have bee more flexible. EditWhat does the bPrereqCivic do?

 

[Koshling]

It would have been nice to know that there were two tags and what they meant when combined In fact would it not have been better if it was a list which had the civic and active flag so you could say needs "X civic active to be active" or "Y civic active to build but stays active" it would have bee more flexible. EditWhat does the bPrereqCivic do?

As far as I can see bPrereqCivic is totally ignored! I have no idea what the intention behind it might have been.

Also, I too was surprised to find a separate activation flag (as well a the AND and OR prereqCivics tags). If we don't need that flexibility (which would suit me, since it obviates the need for making the Pedia distinguish cases) I can have it ignore bRequiresActiveCivics and make that implicit in the existence of any civic AND or OR prereqs.

Later, we can then remove both bRequiresActiveCivics and bPrereqCivic from the schemas and all XML files (that's a lot of files though, so it can wait once the DLL ignores them anyway)

What do you think?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Sounds right to me.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Hydro/DH/CivPlayer8 (mostly) - some buildings have prereq civics listed but do NOT specify bRequiresActiveCivics as 1. Such buildings require the prereq civic to be in place to build them, but they stay active when you lose the civic.

Is this intended? If so why?

Example - the Forum - require republic (to build), but stays active when you lose Republic.

Note - at the very lest this distinction needs to be apparent in the Pedia (which just says 'requires Republic')

For the "Forum" that is a bug. What do I need to do to fix it?

 

[SilentConfusion]

For the "Forum" that is a bug. What do I need to do to fix it?

I noticed the following:

Code for ROMAN_FORUM:

Spoiler :

<PrereqAndCivics>
	<PrereqCivic>
		<CivicOption>CIVIC_REPUBLIC</CivicOption>
		<bPrereqCivic>1</bPrereqCivic>
	</PrereqCivic>
</PrereqAndCivics>

In code for DRAFT_OFFICE:

Spoiler :

<PrereqAndCivics>
	<PrereqCivic>
		<CivicOption>CIVIC_CONSCRIPTION1</CivicOption>
		<bPrereqCivic>1</bPrereqCivic>
	</PrereqCivic>
</PrereqAndCivics>
[COLOR="Red"]<bRequiresActiveCivics>1</bRequiresActiveCivics>[/COLOR]

My guess is that <bRequiresActiveCivics>1</bRequiresActiveCivics> could be inserted after the <PrereqAndCivic> tag and it would work correctly.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Ah ok. Thanks! Shows even I don't know everything.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Just searching through that buildings file the following buildings also do not have the <bRequiresActiveCivics> tag:

FOUNDATION (req. civic Private to build)
CHAMBER_OF_COMMERCE (req. civic Corporate to build)

For clarity they should probably have either <bRequiresActiveCivics>1</bRequiresActiveCivics> or <bRequiresActiveCivics>0</bRequiresActiveCivics> depending on the intention.

Also, RECYCLING_FACTORY (req. civic Environmentalism to build) is the only Building in the list that has <bRequiresActiveCivics>0</bRequiresActiveCivics>, so can someone confirm that that was the intention.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Notes to myself ...

- Fortune Teller
- Psychic Advisor
- Ferry Terminal
- Yacht Club
- Taxidermist
- Book Publisher
- Corporate Hive
- Philanthropic Organization
- Auction House
- Market Research Office
- Piercing Hut
- Piercing Shop
- Carbon Exchange

 

[Nimek]

Piercing hut and shop is not needed because you Can add it Effect to tatoo hut at piercing tech.
Tatoo and piercing studio are always together in real world.

 

[0100010]

Piercing hut and shop is not needed because you Can add it Effect to tatoo hut at piercing tech.
Tatoo and piercing studio are always together in real world.

I agree

 

[0100010]

New Ordinaces for Modern era to help reduce pollution:

Chlorofluorocarbon Ban
Leaded Gasoline Ban

I'm sure there are more...

 

[ls612]

New Ordinaces for Modern era to help reduce pollution:

Chlorofluorocarbon Ban
Leaded Gasoline Ban

I'm sure there are more...

This sounds more like part of some kind of civic choice than a new building.

 

[Thunderbrd]

This sounds more like part of some kind of civic choice than a new building.

As do most ordinances... We could use a better approach for ordinances in general really.

 

[ls612]

As do most ordinances... We could use a better approach for ordinances in general really.

By assuming them as parts of Civics? For instance, all of those ideas that were presented earlier would work much better as part of (or being assumed as) the Green civic.

 

[Nimek]

No civics are rules of nation
Ordinances are laws.

Rule has much widther meaning than law

 

[ls612]

No civics are rules of nation
Ordinances are laws.

Rule has much widther meaning than law

Civics are by definition the rules your Civilization lives under and for the most part follows. A Monarchy (a civ running Monarchy) has rules that say 'the king is in charge, don't question him, etc.', and so on.

 

[Thunderbrd]

As I don't have the scope on the radar for implementing any project to account for what I see as the best way to implement 'Ordinances' I'm not going to get into any detail here.

Suffice it to say, Civics as a lumping of a number of things tends to be TOO lumping at times, thus the reason we're compelled to create Ordinance buildings in the first place. There's a huge variety of policies and laws that exist within the framework of more broad policy definitions that we currently call civics and I don't blame the team for looking for ways via Ordinances and World-Views to account for those varieties. Otherwise we'd have numerous civic categories that are little more than a yes or no selection basically. And in short, that's kinda what we need but it needs to not be 'Civics' as civics are currently defined since that structure really only is well suited to large groupings of policy decisions.

While I'm not sure how I feel about the buildings being used in such a variety of non-structural ways, for now its a good patch solution.