New Version - September 19th (9/19)

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 Food at Chivalry, 1 Gold at Ekinomics, 1 Food at Fertilizer, 1 Prod 1 Science at Ecology, if I remember correctly.

So that's 1 gold in late renaissance era and 1 science in ecology, to me that hardly qualifies as being there at all :D

Well the gold is definitely there, but not the science.

I'm in the camp of wanting the Incan terrace farm to obey the same resource placement rule the Polynesia Easter Island Head Thingies obey. But I'd take really anything over how it works now.

Can sheep perhaps despawn when they get placed next to mountains on Los Incas home continent?

Can the Terrace farms be placable on flat land next to mountains too, at least slightly improving the odds of getting placable spaces? (I don't like that, but compromise is the spirit of this, yeah?)

Can the farms ignore sheep but no other resource?

Can they improve sheep, but add no bonuses from doing so? Can they improve sheep, but remove the bonus resource extra yields to avoid uber tiles? (So sheep under Terrace farms adds -1 food or something?)

Can it cull the sheep? Maybe add a small boost of food to the closest city, ala clearing forest. (OP and probably complicated...)

Maybe building a Terrace-farm on top of a resources could completely disregard that resource both in terms of baseyields and yields from buildings?

Honestly I'm still in the camp if just leaving it as it is however, sure the sheep are frustrating, but a lot of things are frustrating.
If we allow this, what's the next step?
Polders ignoring resources? I mean that's a given, Polders are stronger than any improved resources.
Chateau ignoring resources? Yeah of course it should, I mean Chateau are hard to place in the first place, they shouldn't have to deal with being blocked by resources.
Brazilwood camp? Of course you would want a Brazilwood camp over a banana plantation 10 times out of 10, you'd probably want a Brazilwood camp over a plantation on most luxuries as well. Same deal with Kuna.
 
You've got...something going on. Bad install? Or perhaps another mod causing a conflict?

G

hehehe that's comprehensive ...
still how could i find this conflict sir?how do i find things that are causing problems in logs.a quick help please.
also bad install of what?if you are referring to game, i always clean install the game before installing VP(since i knew my saves are not going to load anyway , until this version)

bad install of VP? how would that occur ? do i have to use EUI? as , currently i play VP w/o EUI. i'd rather not use it (i used it once,while it does look great and is useful,i've read plenty of posts that it causes more problems than it solves)


The Plague / Health mod does not mix well with VP, in my experience.

would health and plague interfere with allied city states not mobilizing their troops?or their own troops and my envoy not being able to enter their territory?i thought city states and AI troop deployment and behaviour are Gazebo's spaciality,so i thought maybe its related to this

i'm sorry .i'm fairly new to civ modding and community here.if my questions seem dumb or newbiesh,its because i I'M noob.
 
would health and plague interfere with allied city states not mobilizing their troops?or their own troops and my envoy not being able to enter their territory?i thought city states and AI troop deployment and behaviour are Gazebo's spaciality,so i thought maybe its related to this

i'm sorry .i'm fairly new to civ modding and community here.if my questions seem dumb or newbiesh,its because i I'M noob.

Honestly, when mods conflict, the possible side effects are wide-ranging. It all depends on what files have been modified and how between the two mods.

Try starting a new game with ONLY (1) Community Patch enabled, and then see if the game runs properly. If it seems normal, try it with both (1) Community Patch and (2) Community Balance Overhaul enabled, and repeat the test in a new game. Do this repeatedly until you find your problem.

Alternatively, check out the modpack. It's plug-and-play and works great.
 
@Funak. I absolutely dont agree. Just like Gothic said, it isnt unplayable how it stands now, but its rly frustrating and unfun at all. i think provide such bonus like sheep remove/ignore would make more funy while not being op. and you rly cant compare terrace farm with any other improvements in terms of yields on improvement itself. Kasbah,chateau,Feitoria,encampment- bunch of yields + combat defense modifier + bunch of tech yields. I think here are inteligent players enough to not complain about something what is already strong enough itself, bcoz of ,,others improvements do''. I didnt ment moai i didnt ment anything. I ment the fact that terraces loosing their potential with game's progress, bcoz of conecting this and there, while removing terraces and loosing food on farms, making them pretty usual. sheeps are biggest issue ofc and in my opinion most boring pasture to work at all. mines have already 6-7 hammers and farms already 5-6 Food while sheeps with stables have 2/4/1 improving significantly nothing.
 
@Funak. I absolutely dont agree. Just like Gothic said, it isnt unplayable how it stands now, but its rly frustrating and unfun at all. i think provide such bonus like sheep remove/ignore would make more funy while not being op. and you rly cant compare terrace farm with any other improvements in terms of yields on improvement itself. Kasbah,chateau,Feitoria,encampment- bunch of yields + combat defense modifier + bunch of tech yields. I think here are inteligent players enough to not complain about something what is already strong enough itself, bcoz of ,,others improvements do''. I didnt ment moai i didnt ment anything. I ment the fact that terraces loosing their potential with game's progress, bcoz of conecting this and there, while removing terraces and loosing food on farms, making them pretty usual. sheeps are biggest issue ofc and in my opinion most boring pasture to work at all. mines have already 6-7 hammers and farms already 5-6 Food while sheeps with stables have 2/4/1 improving significantly nothing.

If you don't think the Terrace farm can compare to other unique improvements then that's a completely different problem.
 
different opinion''. Its for Gazebo whether or not change it. Thinking about it in ideal situation is pointless, since this condition cannot be reached by any UI/civ. Question is how much ,,ideal'' it need to be for every single UI to reach some favorable yields.
 
My the way, I'm noticing some really weird stuff with automated Archaeologists in this version, I mean they are usually terrible and group up 12 units on the same site, but now they actually don't seem to be digging anything up at all.
They started off spreading around to a lot of available sites, I was personally impressed with that, because as mentioned they used to just group up on top of each other. around 20 turns later I start getting weirded out by the fact that I still haven't gotten a single site-popup so far and noticed that a few archaeologists had left their sites in favor of standing around on a hill right next to an unoccupied site, doing nothing. Other Archaeologists that are actually still working on sites just aren't getting anywhere, I was watching a few of them and their 'turns remaining' just didn't drop at all. In a few cases I'm almost sure that the number used to be pretty low and then went back up to 15 again (jungle site). Anyways I used an archaeologist to manually excavate a site and that worked fine, but until the game ended, maybe 60 turns after I sent out my first archaeologist I never got one site-pop other than the one I did manually.

The problem seems to be present for the AI as well as they sent a few units to sites that my archaeologists abandoned and never managed to dig them up either.



Note, that this is a question to the public, not a bug-report, it is quite possible that the problem is isolated to me, or even to just that one game I just played. This just feels like a thing that should be easy to spot, so I'm asking if anyone else have noticed something similar.
 
I don't really care how UIs handle underlying resources (except for removing, which would open all kinds of problems with undiscovered resources), but I want all UIs behaving the same.

Right now, they don't. Kashbas connect, Moais ignore, and the rest cannot even. It's confusing and gives a bad impression.
 
I think the logic with the terrace farm is, other than its historical theme, that in hilly regions food is scarce, so this improvement is meant to allow the Inca settle there. Settling in a hilly region without movement penalties is a reward in itself, for the improved defense and better overall production. It's a map dependent civ. But hills aren't so rare that you cannot spam some terrace farms in every city, even without those hills with sheep. So it does what it's intended: provide extra food for those regions too hilly to have decent food yield.

Now, what happens when you settle on semi-hilly regions (plain regions and islands are to be avoided)? When there is enough farmable lands (or in the coast with some fishes), those hills are good for mining, and sheeps provide a little extra food with good production. Here, terrace farms just add more food to an already well fed city, which could be used to feed more specialists if happiness allowed, at the cost of not building mines (or sawmills if forested) or placing GP Tile Improvements (but they are going to be placed on unfarmable resources anyway). All in all, it sounds balanced, as it feels better to leave some hills without terraces so they can be improved with other things.

But it suffers the same sickness than moais: adjacency. We players want to min-max. A building with adjacency bonuses calls for tetris-like planning so we get the best from it (a triangle of adjacency is just soo good). We are always going to complain that we cannot build enough of the unique improvement.

I feel that the adjacency bonus to terraces is right: it yields more the more hilly and mountainous the region is. The adjacency bonus from terraces to farms, I'm not so sure, as it encourages that you plow more farms, when you already have enough food, but it makes it feel like it's actually a farm.

So it seems that the only unfunny thing about terrace farms is that ... a sheep gets in the way sometimes? I'd say that a bigger unfunny thing is that Inca is better at turtling, staying in an easy to defend land, with enough food to run specialists, and nothing to help them outside their comfort zone (which is too map dependent, btw). They get some gold from mountains, but this is their UA.

What I'd like to see to them is not receiving unhappiness for specialists, given that their UI gives nothing but food.
 
Note, that this is a question to the public, not a bug-report, it is quite possible that the problem is isolated to me, or even to just that one game I just played. This just feels like a thing that should be easy to spot, so I'm asking if anyone else have noticed something similar.

As of the 9/12 version, the AI archeologists worked well enough to the extent that sites were dug up.

I don't really care how UIs handle underlying resources (except for removing, which would open all kinds of problems with undiscovered resources), but I want all UIs behaving the same.

Right now, they don't. Kashbas connect, Moais ignore, and the rest cannot even. It's confusing and gives a bad impression.

I don't follow this last part. To me, they're just two more variations on a rule in a game that's full of them. Feitorias are yet another.
 
People want the Terrace Farms to connect these resources, right? That's my problem – it becomes difficult to control for coding purposes, especially b/c of how the builder AI treats resources.

G

Could you work around it by changing the pasture for incas so that it gives the same bonus as a terrace farm?
 
As of the 9/12 version, the AI archeologists worked well enough to the extent that sites were dug up.
Well, this is the thread for 19/9 version, so that's the version I'm talking about :D



I don't follow this last part. To me, they're just two more variations on a rule in a game that's full of them. Feitorias are yet another.
Honestly I do agree that I think they should all behave the same way. Kasbah being an exception to this of course, because the whole idea of a circle-fort wouldn't work if resources blocked placement.
 
I don't really care how UIs handle underlying resources (except for removing, which would open all kinds of problems with undiscovered resources), but I want all UIs behaving the same.

Right now, they don't. Kashbas connect, Moais ignore, and the rest cannot even. It's confusing and gives a bad impression.

Kashbas connecting resources is a source of their power.

Maoi statues ignore because of the rarity of spidery coastal tiles.

I think that makes good sense.

I just also think the rarity of sheepless hills next to mountains is comparable to spidery coastal tiles. :lol:
 
i noticed weird thing now with my ironclad. destroying enemy missionary consumed my attack point. also when AI is now hot theme, why AI tries escape/evacuate its last garrison unit from city when it loses reasonable amount of defense while city is completely surrounded so unit die in blick moment.
 
I don't really care how UIs handle underlying resources (except for removing, which would open all kinds of problems with undiscovered resources), but I want all UIs behaving the same.

Right now, they don't. Kashbas connect, Moais ignore, and the rest cannot even. It's confusing and gives a bad impression.

I totally disagree.

The different UI have different uses, obviously, but they also are mean to have different rarity and ways to use them.

Some are good grouped (sometimes even grouped with other improvements, such as Polders and Terrace Farms), while others are meant to be rare (Chateau, Kasbah).
There may be too many different behaviors concerning resources, but they clearly shouldn't all be the same.
 
Alright. So I think we can agree that unique improvements should be unique. That's a given. However the vanilla mapscripts have a resource adding component (literally 'placesexysheep' in the Lua) that adds sheep to hills in low-food areas. The problem with that is that, unlike all other mapscript elements, this one specifically undermines the Incan UI. So I think an exception for the Terrace Farm is fair. I'm going to look at making it so that the Inca cannot see sheep. Makes sense (given the absence of all-but-llamas in the Andes in precolumbian times.).

Regarding archaeologists, please report to github.
 
Alright. So I think we can agree that unique improvements should be unique. That's a given. However the vanilla mapscripts have a resource adding component (literally 'placesexysheep' in the Lua) that adds sheep to hills in low-food areas. The problem with that is that, unlike all other mapscript elements, this one specifically undermines the Incan UI. So I think an exception for the Terrace Farm is fair. I'm going to look at making it so that the Inca cannot see sheep. Makes sense (given the absence of all-but-llamas in the Andes in precolumbian times.).

Regarding archaeologists, please report to github.

I don't really see why the Inca shouldn't see sheep, I mean there were no horses or cattle anywhere in the Americas, should all america-based civs just not see any pasture-resources because of that?

This mapscript thing affects one situation and one situation alone, when a sheep spawns on a hill next to multiple mountains, and yes that does happen a lot, mainly because mountains don't have any food on them. But it's honestly not like there are more mountain-hills with sheep on them than without sheep on them. This whole discussion just feels a lot like 'game is conspiring against me'-syndrome, confirmation-bias and straight up over exaggerations.

Let's figure out a way to make the terrace-farms that you actually get to build feel cool and rewarding rather than upsetting the pasture-balance, and making ridiculously ugly terrace-sheep tiles that in the end won't really change anything.


On the topic of githubs I still can't post things there.

Speaking of which, the Ethiopian unique unit obsoletes on Replaceable parts instead of Combined arms. ^^
 
It's not bias if the mapscripts summon it explicitly. :lol:
 
It's not bias if the mapscripts summon it explicitly. :lol:

That's actually the definition of bias :D





But anyways what I meant was that the issue is minor and people are just over exaggerating the situation because of confirmation-bias.
 
But anyways what I meant was that the issue is minor and people are just over exaggerating the situation because of confirmation-bias.

I really don't think it's confirmation bias.

On the worst Hun game I've ever played, I got to plant a bunch of Ekis that just weren't next to eachother.

On the worst Inca game I've ever played, I got to plant two terrace farms total and had to rip one of them out because it had been planted on uranium.

Roll ten inca starts. Disable hidden resources. Count your valid terrace farm locations on your continent. Compare this to valid Kasbash locations, valid eki locations, valid polder locations, valid pyramid locations, etc.

The inca UI would have to be something along the order of magnitude of a natural wonder to make up for its current placement issues, unless you tweak the map by setting "sparse resources."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom