New Game Speeds

[Toffer90]

I'm still of the opinion that we should have two build queues, one for the player (the state) and one for the AI (the free market) and that the production in the city should be split between them in a ratio based on civic selections. The people tend to build things for different reasons than a strategic player - thus a tavern would be one of the first buildings most cities would build from the free market side.

But as far as projects go... that's... big.

That idea has crossed my mind many times, but yeah, it's a very big and complicated project, and I'm not sure we would gain much by simulating this natural economical evolution that the player has little control over.

It would mostly act as a deepening of the civic system, but I believe there are more interesting ways to improve the civic part of the game.

An Idea I had on civics was to have a button within the civic screen that opens a policy screen, the different policies can be activated/deactivated without any anarchy time. Some are listed as mutually exclusive while others can be chosen freely independent of other policies, but the policies listed/available would depend on what combination of fundamental civics the player has and may also require techs.

 

[Thunderbrd]

That idea has crossed my mind many times, but yeah, it's a very big and complicated project, and I'm not sure we would gain much by simulating this natural economical evolution that the player has little control over.

It would mostly act as a deepening of the civic system, but I believe there are more interesting ways to improve the civic part of the game.

I think it would add a LOT and be totally worth it BUT it's something that we just don't have the bandwidth to do right now.

An Idea I had on civics was to have a button within the civic screen that opens a policy screen, the different policies can be activated/deactivated without any anarchy time. Some are listed as mutually exclusive while others can be chosen freely independent of other policies, but the policies listed/available would depend on what combination of fundamental civics the player has and may also require techs.

This is pretty similar to my original idea that ended up evolving into the current ordinance system. I obviously have not had the time to do much towards that so the Ordinance buildings were faster to implement for Hydro and others. For some time to come here, I expect that will be the way to handle these concepts. We need more of them anyhow... judges need more to do.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I think of buildings like barbershops and markets and such as being buildings that once built are now effectively covering the city's needs for these things and will continue to scale with the city as it grows. In many ways, they really should, instead of being +1 gold, scale by size, so be more like +.1 gold per population. Or even +.01 gold per population. This lets us know that we're not talking about one building but all the many scattered buildings these enterprises represent.

I don't think this is quite right. The first should provide a bigger benefit than the second and eventually you get diminishing returns.

For example: (Note: names and numbers are for the purposes of example only. C2C would probably want to go with the population limits it already has.)

• The market could be +1 gold plus 0.1 gold per population over 1 but less than 20.
  
  
• The supermarket that replaces it would then have +1 gold plus 0.1 gold per population over 1 but less than 20 and +0.2 gold per population 20 to less than 40.
  
  
• The megamartet that replaces the supermarket would then have the same with plus 0.3 gold per population 40 but less than 100.

This would still provide some benefit and make the upgrade buildings not quite so good in smaller cities.

The XML for this could look something like (example only)

<VariablePerPopCommerces>

<VariablePerPopCommerces>

<PerPopCommerce>

<MinPop>integer<\MinPop>
<MaxPop>integer<\MaxPop>
<iCommerce>integer<\iCommerce>
<iCommerce>integer<\iCommerce>
<iCommerce>integer<\iCommerce>
<iCommerce>integer<\iCommerce>​

<\PerPopCommerce>​

<\VariablePerPopCommerce>​

<\VariablePerPopCommerces>​

This is, of course. an even bigger project.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I don't think this is quite right. The first should provide a bigger benefit than the second and eventually you get diminishing returns.

For example: (Note: names and numbers are for the purposes of example only. C2C would probably want to go with the population limits it already has.)

• The market could be +1 gold plus 0.1 gold per population over 1 but less than 20.
  
  
• The supermarket that replaces it would then have +1 gold plus 0.1 gold per population over 1 but less than 20 and +0.2 gold per population 20 to less than 40.
  
  
• The megamartet that replaces the supermarket would then have the same with plus 0.3 gold per population 40 but less than 100.

This would still provide some benefit and make the upgrade buildings not quite so good in smaller cities.

The XML for this could look something like (example only)

<VariablePerPopCommerces>

<VariablePerPopCommerces>

<PerPopCommerce>

<MinPop>integer<\MinPop>
<MaxPop>integer<\MaxPop>
<iCommerce>integer<\iCommerce>
<iCommerce>integer<\iCommerce>
<iCommerce>integer<\iCommerce>
<iCommerce>integer<\iCommerce>​

<\PerPopCommerce>​

<\VariablePerPopCommerce>​

<\VariablePerPopCommerces>​

This is, of course. an even bigger project.

Yeah we don't have that kind of maneuverability with the current tags but the point that we could do +1 gold and then +.01/population or something of that ilk would be quite appropriate to help scale things.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I'm still of the opinion that we should have two build queues, one for the player (the state) and one for the AI (the free market) and that the production in the city should be split between them in a ratio based on civic selections. The people tend to build things for different reasons than a strategic player - thus a tavern would be one of the first buildings most cities would build from the free market side.

I and others have thought on this many times but it has always turned out to be too difficult or complex or unfun or just did not work. However it was never a team effort. Lets face it if given their own choice the people of the town will build those buildings you don't want in your cities gambling halls et.

I always thought that it would be better to have many queues depending on the buildings already built and the production granted to them by the city governor. For example if you have a Barracks and the Governor gives the military sector 10% of the city per turn then the military queue would use that to build units and other military buildings.

It would mostly act as a deepening of the civic system, but I believe there are more interesting ways to improve the civic part of the game.

An Idea I had on civics was to have a button within the civic screen that opens a policy screen, the different policies can be activated/deactivated without any anarchy time. Some are listed as mutually exclusive while others can be chosen freely independent of other policies, but the policies listed/available would depend on what combination of fundamental civics the player has and may also require techs.

I can see the need for such things at a City and National level in addition to the Civics. It is one of the things in the White Lies, Black Ops mod that we wanted to reuse.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

If your choice is to move in that direction for city development, maybe you're thinking of the implementation backwards. Leave a simplified bonus on the building, but change the game system to take population size into account for reaching the actual bonus quantities. As in, modify the rules for cities, not thousands of buildings.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

If your choice is to move in that direction for city development, maybe you're thinking of the implementation backwards. Leave a simplified bonus on the building, but change the game system to take population size into account for reaching the actual bonus quantities. As in, modify the rules for cities, not thousands of buildings.

Except it is not wanted for every building just some buildings.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I always thought that it would be better to have many queues depending on the buildings already built and the production granted to them by the city governor. For example if you have a Barracks and the Governor gives the military sector 10% of the city per turn then the military queue would use that to build units and other military buildings.

Gotta admit... that's a pretty cool concept.

If I were starting with the game design from scratch, I would start off by splitting up the meaning of a to start with. In Civ it means both labor and materials. I'd make it ONLY mean labor, so you wouldn't be collecting it from the map. You'd just collect certain materials from the map and things would be very heavily based on volumetric resources.

 

[MacCoise]

I'm still of the opinion that we should have two build queues, one for the player (the state) and one for the AI (the free market) and that the production in the city should be split between them in a ratio based on civic selections. The people tend to build things for different reasons than a strategic player - thus a tavern would be one of the first buildings most cities would build from the free market side.

But as far as projects go... that's... big.

It also makes me smile when I see some of you guys talking about your World View that you have created a game that simulates a Stalinist economy. If you look at Vanila Civ all the buildinsg are ones we would see as normal for a State to build like the Courthouse, Barracks, Hospitals etc. C2C has the State building the Barbers, the Jewellers and so on....

Just an observation!

 

[Thunderbrd]

It also makes me smile when I see some of you guys talking about your World View that you have created a game that simulates a Stalinist economy. If you look at Vanila Civ all the buildinsg are ones we would see as normal for a State to build like the Courthouse, Barracks, Hospitals etc. C2C has the State building the Barbers, the Jewellers and so on....

Just an observation!

Wanting these things in the game and having to work with the game's original framework, which is more communistic by design simply because it was never intended for this much depth is more to blame. We're discussing ways to correct this so that not all sysyems technically run in a communist fashion.

That said, as a democratic socialist I do feel the strategicaly organized society should be more likely to succeed than the organic happhazard, though I do understand the arguments for our capitalist system.

I think it would be amazing if we could really SHOW the differenced in our game. A mostly complete privatized system would have huge production boosts but would opt for more basal human wants and absolute needs over the most effective build choices and while it would do well economically it would be very difficult to lead such a nation until you master propaganda.

 

[tmv]

as a democratic socialist I do feel the strategicaly organized society should be more likely to succeed than the organic happhazard

Now that's certainly a point of view that I can respect, even if I disagree. It is sometimes forgotten today that Karl Marx never wanted to install an inferior economic system. He actually thought that by centralising the economic decisions it would be possible to remove friction (even if he didn't call it that) and have a more productive economy. I think his three main mistakes were: disregarding the advantages of being closer to the situation (both for a speedy decision and for actually seeing for yourself what is going on), not seeing different values for a product depending on location (coals, Newcastle?) and not knowing of Dunbar's number (at least the last one is not his fault, this was first proposed in the 1990s).

When socialists today say that economic strength doesn't matter because fairness is more important I cannot help but imagine what Marx would have to say about that.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Now that's certainly a point of view that I can respect, even if I disagree. It is sometimes forgotten today that Karl Marx never wanted to install an inferior economic system. He actually thought that by centralising the economic decisions it would be possible to remove friction (even if he didn't call it that) and have a more productive economy. I think his three main mistakes were: disregarding the advantages of being closer to the situation (both for a speedy decision and for actually seeing for yourself what is going on), not seeing different values for a product depending on location (coals, Newcastle?) and not knowing of Dunbar's number (at least the last one is not his fault, this was first proposed in the 1990s).

When socialists today say that economic strength doesn't matter because fairness is more important I cannot help but imagine what Marx would have to say about that.

Sadly, it is human corruption, the desire of the ego to leverage a system to your own benefit at the expense, even through carelessness, of the benefits of others, that destroys our best attempts at a good society. No method really works until you somehow address that. If we can't get it through our heads that to make the world better for others is to make it better for ourselves, we'll never survive no matter what government or economic structure we employ.

 

[Usul13]

Next set of Civic maintenance adjustments committed.

Now I need to hear reports from New games on All GS started with this last SVN version 9633.

I started a new game on SVN 9633. Monarch difficulty, snail game speed, large map generated with the C2C_World generator, continents, medium sea level, tropical climate settings. I'm with the Celtic Empire. Technology Trading and Brokering disabled, Tech Diffusion enabled, Win for Losing disabled, Beeline Stings enabled. Developing Leaders and Start without Positive Traits enabled so I started without traits.

I reached Sedentary Lifestyle in Turn 516, 5942 BC. I wasn't the first, someone reached it in Turn 483, 8690BC, but not long after that I got a message that I am the most advanced civilization on the world. I have 6 cities, and 1694 golds in my treasury. I currently loose 24 golds in every turn but before the prehistoric wonders became obsolete I got +1 gold/turn.

I researched every prehistoric technology. I discovered Tribalism in 21690 BC. I forgot to write down the turn counter. I chose Scientific trait in Turn 35, Financial and Idealistic traits in Turn 167, and Expansive trait in Turn 348.

My starting position was very good, I had a lot of hammers and I was able to build most of the prehistoric wonders which helped a lot. Tech Diffusion didn't help much. There is one other civilization on my starting continent and I was ahead of them almost from the start. Hunting helped a little but it wasn't ideal. I started to hunt quite late, around 30000 BC. My continent isn't big and I'm near to the north ice cap. There are a lot of those big caribou and bison herds which are too strong to kill at the moment, and the smaller preys are scarce.

Edit: My Research was 100% all the time.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Thanks Usul13. Now let's see how your journey thru the Ancient era pans out. Using developing leaders and picking all the Good traits will give you a significant boost.As did the Preh Wonders.

And not sure why you have trouble with caribou and bison for hunting. My Trackers take caribou out quite early. Of course I don't try to take them when they are on a forested hill either. And my 1st master tracker usually handles Bison, Musk Ox and Moose as well. Yes I lose occasionally to them, especially the musk ox if you don't leave the area to heal up.

 

[Usul13]

Thanks Usul13. Now let's see how your journey thru the Ancient era pans out. Using developing leaders and picking all the Good traits will give you a significant boost.As did the Preh Wonders.

And not sure why you have trouble with caribou and bison for hunting. My Trackers take caribou out quite early. Of course I don't try to take them when they are on a forested hill either. And my 1st master tracker usually handles Bison, Musk Ox and Moose as well. Yes I lose occasionally to them, especially the musk ox if you don't leave the area to heal up.

The map is full of hills and forests. Also most of the herds are 6.75 or 10.something strong. My trackers have quite low chance against those. I can kill them a little bit better with spearmans, but subduing them is harder in this case. I got my 1st master tracker recently, it is more useful indeed.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Also most of the herds are 6.75 or 10.something strong

Using Size Matters then, none of those are that str. if not using SM.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Not sure what exactly is causing this but it seems related to Game Speed. Before you did your changes I was getting far to many Great Hunters and Generals now I am getting about half the number of Great Hunters that was intended in the design of the hunting phase. This may because I am not using the option that removes the national limits on units so I can only have 5 hunters plus masters. (Note I mean hunter line there not the unit called Hunter, just to be clear.)

edit When I reached Sedentary Lifestyle techs went from requining 6-8 turns to learn to 4 turns. I forgot to save but will start a new game soon and I will try and remember to then. This game was more for me to figure out what techs the Animism religions should go on as I write up that bit.

 

[Usul13]

Using Size Matters then, none of those are that str. if not using SM.

That's correct. I like the C2C combat mods. They make the game more fun.

 

[Thunderbrd]

That's correct. I like the C2C combat mods. They make the game more fun.

One of the planned adjustments to come, hopefully by the end of this design cycle, is that larger herds like that would spawn smaller groups as they collect enough food to grow and expand and some families of these animals drift off from the main. It will eventually be useful to follow these herds to prey on the ones that wander off from the main groups.

There's also some planned abilities to come, for hunters and predatorial animals, to attack with the intent to split the group, down to an individual that can be taken down as prey, without having to destroy the whole herd.

For now, the larger groups will just have to be tolerated as generally very difficult to hunt, even survive if you tangle with them.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Not sure what exactly is causing this but it seems related to Game Speed. Before you did your changes I was getting far to many Great Hunters and Generals now I am getting about half the number of Great Hunters that was intended in the design of the hunting phase.

EDIT: Great People rates were brought in line( ie. matched up) with all other major modifiers in all GS. If, after more reports come in, there needs to be an uptick, then I will do so. But the test games I have going on Normal, Epic, Marathon, Eon and Eternity, all seem to be getting a decent number.

How many GH were assigned per GS for the Hunting phase? I have found no set numbers.

Golden Ages lengths were reduced in GS after Normal which has the default Global define number at 8.

I don't have any of these test games on Unlimited National Units though.