Not as much of a joke as it will sound at the first glance...

[Joij21]

I would say a weird thing now.
It'd be a rather interesting concept to combine Europa Universalis with both C2C and Rhye's.
As the BASIC game, no less.

That's a huge request for any developer to make. Likely it would take them years and they wouldn't have a constant stream of money for that time as the base would be too large. To be profitable even that base game you describe would have to be chopped up into DLC. Then again a company with a huge stream of money to begin with (like EA) could probably do it. But of course trusting your games to a company like EA has its own risks.

 

[Thunderbrd]

But of course trusting your games to a company like EA has its own risks.

Trying to pitch a game to any established company is basically a "here, have this idea for free" concept to begin with. If you want any kind of creative input beyond that you basically need your own company.

 

[Joij21]

Trying to pitch a game to any established company is basically a "here, have this idea for free" concept to begin with. If you want any kind of creative input beyond that you basically need your own company.

Which unless your a AAA studio then such a game can never be feasibly done. Just not enough resources to throw at it, especially so if your development team consists of just five guys or less.

Take a look at Thrive by Revolutionary Studios. They've been going at it for almost a decade now and haven't even come close to finishing beyond a microbe prototype. They have many of these so called "theorizers" (possibly upwards of twenty) but have less than five actual coders. And of those coders only about one is working on the whole project at a time. This also does not include the fact that at least half a dozen coders have come and gone with the project just over the last decade. Their trying to release it for free and have only been funded by measly Patreon donations.

Generally speaking the project is also way too ambitious for the size and resources of what their team actually has. Also they have the problem of not having all their plans fully fleshed out, despite almost a decade ago when they should have finished the preliminary stage. The main reason for that problem is of course because of those "theorizers" I mentioned before who constantly change ideas of where the game goes as they debate endlessly back and forth over the most "scientific" way to accomplish the project. What's worse is they change on a dime the moment a new scientific discovery happens that calls into question some fundamental design aspect of the game. Which is why they generally should've just stuck to a general plan that's based on Earth biology, only slightly more realistic than the very Spore they were trying to replace. Not so realistic that it becomes overcomplicated and can never be finished.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Which unless your a AAA studio then such a game can never be feasibly done. Just not enough resources to throw at it, especially so if your development team consists of just five guys or less.

Take a look at Thrive by Revolutionary Studios. They've been going at it for almost a decade now and haven't even come close to finishing beyond a microbe prototype. They have many of these so called "theorizers" (possibly upwards of twenty) but have less than five actual coders. And of those coders only about one is working on the whole project at a time. This also does not include the fact that at least half a dozen coders have come and gone with the project just over the last decade. Their trying to release it for free and have only been funded by measly Patreon donations.

Generally speaking the project is also way too ambitious for the size and resources of what their team actually has. Also they have the problem of not having all their plans fully fleshed out, despite almost a decade ago when they should have finished the preliminary stage. The main reason for that problem is of course because of those "theorizers" I mentioned before who constantly change ideas of where the game goes as they debate endlessly back and forth over the most "scientific" way to accomplish the project. What's worse is they change on a dime the moment a new scientific discovery happens that calls into question some fundamental design aspect of the game. Which is why they generally should've just stuck to a general plan that's based on Earth biology, only slightly more realistic than the very Spore they were trying to replace. Not so realistic that it becomes overcomplicated and can never be finished.

Obviously why you cannot be so ambitious to start with. You can have ambition but you cannot promise the full vision will be met before you have it to a place where you can invite people to play and begin to contribute to further development as you continue to enjoy the game as it expands. True ambition will never have an 'end goal' point.

 

[Somebody613]

Obviously why you cannot be so ambitious to start with. You can have ambition but you cannot promise the full vision will be met before you have it to a place where you can invite people to play and begin to contribute to further development as you continue to enjoy the game as it expands. True ambition will never have an 'end goal' point.

Either we utterly don't understand other, or I don't know what ha[[ens here.
To start with a very small step - I bet that it'd take nothing much beyond a few tweaks to variables, to get the actual Civ4 engine to recognize x64 memory.
And you already had altered the mod in many ways quite tangential to Vanilla, including rules and routines, not merely amounts of the same old stuff.
In fact, a great lot of stuff would be accomplished by simply literally merging C2C and Rhye's, if coupled with sufficient memory to hold all of its vast data.
The problem isn't even the programming - both mods are already functional, and I really doubt it'd be that hard to make them compatible.
In fact, I think I was directly told by you guys in the past that the reason behind you NOT doing it, is more of a goal-based issue than anything programming-related.
In other words - that isn't what you WANT for C2C, not that you COULDN'T do it.
And this point gets automatically moot in the case of a totally NEW GAME, so that's that.
To make it short(er), the only REAL obstacle I see for my "potential new game plans", is the part about Superior Graphics, which WOULD demand resources like crazy.
Except... that's not MY GOAL, lol.
I want a game that is fun to PLAY, not just pretty to LOOK at.
I have 1000 times more interest in new and better RULES than in any modernization of GRAPHICS even beyond Civ4, let alone Civ6.
Heck, C2C is already a Civ4 mod, so it already has 3D units that move - and you can't get better than THAT, lol.
I see any further UPGRADE to graphics as waaay secondary compared to improving the rules and features of the game itself.
In fact, the FOLLOWING features don't require ANYTHING beyond a drastic increase in supported memory (and THAT is banal) to allocate all of the calculations behind it:
-The number of simultaneous Civs. While I might be overly enthusiastic over this feature, it WOULD make a lot of a difference, if we could play 100 Civs, not just 40.
-The size of playable maps. If we assume an increase in players, we also need to assume an increase in landmass to support them. Again, quantity, not novelty.
-The number of plot-related features. Again, with enough memory to support the increase in data, you can add tons of new plot properties that would work similarly enough.
-Rhye's Real World feature. This one is literally another issue of a huge database support. It worked with smaller maps, why wouldn't it work with immense ones?
-Probably something else with the same logic of "the same, but much more".
To sum up:
Unless I'm 100% WRONG (and these limitations WOULD NOT be solved by modernizing the engine, which I highly doubt) - I see zero problem in getting AT LEAST this amount of UPGRADING done to Civ4:C2C_Modern.
You are all welcome to tell me where I'm wrong here, but PLEASE be as specific as possible about WHY so.
Thank you.

 

[tmv]

What I forgot the last time: Of course you would also implement multithreading in the exe, probably with OpenCL, so that you could access the GPU for parallelized calculations as well. In that case you might need a good GPU even if the graphics are not high-end.

 

[Somebody613]

What I forgot the last time: Of course you would also implement multithreading in the exe, probably with OpenCL, so that you could access the GPU for parallelized calculations as well. In that case you might need a good GPU even if the graphics are not high-end.

The problem with the current engine for Civ4 is that its limitations aren't being cured by a better PC - which is exactly what I'm talking about.
If/when the new game engine becomes capable of UTILIZING better computers - it stops being incurably crippled the way it is now.
I'm absolutely sure that Civ6's engine doesn't have this problem - but it's too "alien" in regards to how it treats the GAME.
So we still need a new engine from scratch, but in the game rules model of Civ4, not Civ6.
At least hopefully so - and, of course, if the Civ6 engine is incapable of outright supporting the current C2C structure as is (with minor tweaking).
But the major point is that it's simply about "unshackling" the game engine's capabilities, no so much about the actual programming of the game rules.
I'm still unsure that it's REALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do that tweak to the ACTUAL Civ4 engine in the first place.
For that, you'd need to be granted the open-source ACCESS to it - but that alone doesn't mean that it'd not be DOABLE.

 

[Thunderbrd]

To start with a very small step - I bet that it'd take nothing much beyond a few tweaks to variables, to get the actual Civ4 engine to recognize x64 memory.

We cannot just tweak what we cannot work with. The exe will never be made available to alter or adjust due to the agreements Firaxis made with Gamebryo - it's neither company's right in full to share or disclose the EXE as it is. We'd have to recreate from the ground up and from what the experienced coders are telling me, that's a ginormous effort alone that dwarfs everything we've ever done here.

To make it short(er), the only REAL obstacle I see for my "potential new game plans", is the part about Superior Graphics, which WOULD demand resources like crazy.
Except... that's not MY GOAL, lol.
I want a game that is fun to PLAY, not just pretty to LOOK at.
I have 1000 times more interest in new and better RULES than in any modernization of GRAPHICS even beyond Civ4, let alone Civ6.

Honestly, it's not the graphics either. I can only imagine that newer graphic support systems and improved computing limitations have already made it easier to produce nicer higher resolution graphics and models and include them into the game than what we're even working with here. It's actually MORE difficult to do art to lower res art and animation than it is to do higher resolution stuff in a lot of ways because you have to find tricks to making things 'look' good and like what you want them to appear like at greater limitations and you don't need those efforts into various illusions with higher res - you just make it what you wanted it to be. Hard to explain.

The problem is that the core fundamental whole game architecture is an immense undertaking with a huge realm of options and a lot of hard to grasp consequences between so many choices one can make. It's like, as modders, we change rooms and wallpapers and cielings and floors inside a high rise building all we want, but to build one from scratch means you have to have the engineering skills and understanding to build the frame and exterior that isn't going to collapse under its own weight.

THEN, if we go that route of recreating the game from the ground up, the amount of design adjustments to make it something NOT susceptible to intellectual property clashes, will also be a major effort - that's the part I'd want to work on. But you won't be looking at exactly the same game at that point... though I'm sure I'd try to make it as similar as possible and mostly adjust the fundamental design flaws I feel Civ has on the whole - but then again, not all will want that either so any change becomes a risk of audience rejection - is that difference perceived as a bug or feature?

I'm absolutely sure that Civ6's engine doesn't have this problem - but it's too "alien" in regards to how it treats the GAME.

That and from what I gather, not nearly as much of the program is exposed to modding either. And yes, very alien to what we have here on numerous points.

What I forgot the last time: Of course you would also implement multithreading in the exe, probably with OpenCL, so that you could access the GPU for parallelized calculations as well. In that case you might need a good GPU even if the graphics are not high-end.

We'd need some very good programmers who know how to do all that without destroying the capacity for MP games. Bill had some thoughts on how to improve things there but most multithreading attempts have proven unsafe for synchronized MP play, so we might need a whole different approach to MP as well.

 

[Somebody613]

We cannot just tweak what we cannot work with. The exe will never be made available to alter or adjust due to the agreements Firaxis made with Gamebryo - it's neither company's right in full to share or disclose the EXE as it is. We'd have to recreate from the ground up and from what the experienced coders are telling me, that's a ginormous effort alone that dwarfs everything we've ever done here.

That outright SUCKS.
Because if you had that access (even after making some deal, but had it in the end anyways) - you'd be able to simply remove the stupid MEMORY limitations and voila.
Sure, I'm NOT a serious programmer and thus I have near-zero understanding of the actual problem involved here, but I really see very little options of HOW a program would be limited to lower memory in ANY way that isn't fixable through literal minimum switching of the variables.
As amateur as I am, I can't think of ANY programming limitations that would result in a NON-fixable engine.
Now, as of "making from scratch" - again, I'm an amateur, but you guys have collectively already ADDED additional features and layers to the Vanilla engine way beyond mere units or techs.
So are you REALLY SURE that you'd be unable (or have a very hard time) to recreate it from scratch by using the pointers you already used anyways?
Also, there ARE mods that implement "more than one chain of technology (aka magic)" and some other stuff, including depletable and quantifiable resources.
Again, I'm asking this as amateur, so please don't get angry at me, but the amount of CHANGES that had been done to the TOTAL SUM of ALL MODS is staggering.
Which is why I find it extremely SAD that we can't improve further due to some "legal" nonsense.
Sorry for not ending the topic yet, but I'm just over-agitated about the whole thing - and I do hope you can sympathize with me here.

 

[Thunderbrd]

That outright SUCKS.
Because if you had that access (even after making some deal, but had it in the end anyways) - you'd be able to simply remove the stupid MEMORY limitations and voila.
Sure, I'm NOT a serious programmer and thus I have near-zero understanding of the actual problem involved here, but I really see very little options of HOW a program would be limited to lower memory in ANY way that isn't fixable through literal minimum switching of the variables.
As amateur as I am, I can't think of ANY programming limitations that would result in a NON-fixable engine.
Now, as of "making from scratch" - again, I'm an amateur, but you guys have collectively already ADDED additional features and layers to the Vanilla engine way beyond mere units or techs.
So are you REALLY SURE that you'd be unable (or have a very hard time) to recreate it from scratch by using the pointers you already used anyways?
Also, there ARE mods that implement "more than one chain of technology (aka magic)" and some other stuff, including depletable and quantifiable resources.
Again, I'm asking this as amateur, so please don't get angry at me, but the amount of CHANGES that had been done to the TOTAL SUM of ALL MODS is staggering.
Which is why I find it extremely SAD that we can't improve further due to some "legal" nonsense.
Sorry for not ending the topic yet, but I'm just over-agitated about the whole thing - and I do hope you can sympathize with me here.

I get it. This has been the great frustration for all of us.

The EXE was built on an older system that presumed certain limitations that were at the time hard to imagine ever needing, or even being able, to surpass. The tech for going beyond wasn't even really there yet at the time. Now that it is, it's the standard of course, but the fact that the limits were baked in there is something we can't get around - we have only to learn how to make things more and more efficient to achieve what we really want and it's been a helpful exercise in that regard. Much like what the guys that built the software for moonlanding systems must have experienced - though they probably had it a LOT worse than we do as they planned out the use of every bit of data they could get.

 

[Somebody613]

I get it. This has been the great frustration for all of us.

The EXE was built on an older system that presumed certain limitations that were at the time hard to imagine ever needing, or even being able, to surpass. The tech for going beyond wasn't even really there yet at the time. Now that it is, it's the standard of course, but the fact that the limits were baked in there is something we can't get around - we have only to learn how to make things more and more efficient to achieve what we really want and it's been a helpful exercise in that regard. Much like what the guys that built the software for moonlanding systems must have experienced - though they probably had it a LOT worse than we do as they planned out the use of every bit of data they could get.

On a semi-tangent, can you tell me your non-amateur explanation as to what exactly limitations are you talking about?
Because to the amateur me, it's as stupidly simple as using "Single" instead of "Double" size variables (making the DATA limitation immense), or something close enough.
So is THAT the case here, the way it LOOKS to you?
Or is it something else, but then I can't think of ANYTHING, given how amateur I am.

 

[Thunderbrd]

On a semi-tangent, can you tell me your non-amateur explanation as to what exactly limitations are you talking about?
Because to the amateur me, it's as stupidly simple as using "Single" instead of "Double" size variables (making the DATA limitation immense), or something close enough.
So is THAT the case here, the way it LOOKS to you?
Or is it something else, but then I can't think of ANYTHING, given how amateur I am.

32 bit vs 64 bit core. Ultimately what this means for us is that the game will MAF after it hits just under 4 gig ram usage.

This can still allow for a LOT to be done but we have to often do it more efficiently than the program was originally written to be. And certain design choices need to be made to get the game to organically 'want' to stay within boundaries rather than wanting to exceed them. For example, endless unit creation in the game will eventually crash it. So the AI has to have a sense of ideal 'limits'. I'm working on some of that kind of planning to address things at the moment.

 

[Somebody613]

32 bit vs 64 bit core.

My question was - what CAUSES it based on the SOFTWARE?
Like, the way I can only think of it, it's literally "smaller variables" being used.
DOUBLE is clearly x64, so probably SINGLE/FLOAT is x32 - or is it something else?
Can you EXPLAIN it to me more thoroughly, please?

 

[Toffer90]

My question was - what CAUSES it based on the SOFTWARE?
Like, the way I can only think of it, it's literally "smaller variables" being used.
DOUBLE is clearly x64, so probably SINGLE/FLOAT is x32 - or is it something else?
Can you EXPLAIN it to me more thoroughly, please?

32 bit software can still use variables of 64 bit size in its code. Its about how much total address space the program has mapped for itself, this is mostly a compiler thing, since 32 bit OS can't give one process more than 2^32 bytes (4 GB) address space, 32 bit software only map out 4 GB of address space for itself. Hard to trivialize an explanation more than that I think. A 32 bit program can't use more than it has mapped, so a 64 bit OS won't really help.

If you're curious enough you can find loads of additional info by googling it.
Like this: https://www.oracle.com/solaris/technologies/ilp32tolp64issues.html

 

[Somebody613]

32 bit software can still use variables of 64 bit size in its code. Its about how much total address space the program has mapped for itself, this is mostly a compiler thing, since 32 bit OS can't give one process more than 2^32 bytes (4 GB) address space, 32 bit software only map out 4 GB of address space for itself. Hard to trivialize an explanation more than that I think. A 32 bit program can't use more than it has mapped, so a 64 bit OS won't really help.

If you're curious enough you can find loads of additional info by googling it.
Like this: https://www.oracle.com/solaris/technologies/ilp32tolp64issues.html

OK, I still don't understand whether this is anything but "change the variable types and you have it".
But probably never mind anyways.

 

[Trantor]

agree...this is better than any of the new civ games. and if they add the space part and aliens...WHOA....

this will be the game... it will beat all versions of civ put together till date

 

[Kohnoshish]

Y'know, a long time ago I considered just figuring out who exactly is in charge/would say yes/no to the idea of opening access of the EXE to modders, and contacting them to see if they'd let Civ 4 modders have access to it, either for free or for a fee/subscription.

I wonder how one would get started on that process.

edit: derp, I shoulda read the thread better. Firaxis and Gamebryo? Gotcha...

 

[Kohnoshish]

I emailed 2K support and Gamebryo sales. Dunno if it's any use, but I'll let y'all know if I get an interesting reply.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I emailed 2K support and Gamebryo sales. Dunno if it's any use, but I'll let y'all know if I get an interesting reply.

Yes definitely

It can take a bit to dig to find the right PEOPLE to speak with specifically in those companies as well. Just the company fronts are often deaf to all the stuff they get. But if you researched who the decisionmakers were and wrote directly to them... Director level and higher... you might be able to get an answer as to who you'd really need to talk to. Let me know if it gets to that sort of point and I might find I can bring some of my old corporate sales experience into play on this.

 

[Somebody613]

A bit of a zombie-threading, indeed.
But if, by some near-miracle, we can get this project to actually benefit from the modern hardware...
I won't repeat how I'd be excited, but let's be honest - we'd all quite literally SQUEE, wouldn't we?