PAE VI

[brettschmitt]

I have a 52 Civ map in the works but I would like to go through a half dozen auto plays before I release the first version, any help appreciated.

I'm not using autoplay. I've added a viewer Civ in a black area at the edge of the map and actually clicking through the whole game... just watching the AI
It takes some time, but I'm having quite fun with it.

In the CivilizationIV.ini you can change (or add if not in there yet) the following line:

; Move along
CheatCode = chipotle

This will activate the cheatmode
(ctrl-d) for the ingame cheating options

 

[tot]

Oh wow, that's a lot of work!
I have gotten the AI AutoPlay to work, though you must reload the autosave after it completes (or is cancelled) and swap out for another civ to view, which is rather strange.

I have been able to run through around 5 tests up to the 500 turn mark, and things seem balanced, I have tweaked a bit of the starting terrain and given each starting city a border pop.

I am wondering though, many of the Mesopotamian + Nile civs are unhealthy and growing fast early on, but I have not seen an Emigrant spawn, how does that event work? I would like it so the faster growing civs could get a second city out through Emigrant spawn before Settlers are unlocked, would provide a more realistic fertile crescent than we get now.

Cheers

 

[tot]

I have seen posts about the archer spawn in this thread but no solution? How can I disable this?
As you can see I have had 2 AI only games that were ruined by these archers. In the first image you can see 600 turns in and Recurve bowmen have been spawned from a stronghold, and move toward barbarian cities. There are already 100+ bowmen in the city or making their way towards it.
In the second image you can see near 500 turns, and there are 1800+ bowmen in the city?! This is also only one of four barbarian cities that survive on this map, meaning there are nearly 10,000 barbarian AI units on the map sitting idle in cities.
It seems that this does not happen every game, but when it does almost all animals stop spawning and the turn time is near 400% longer than a comparable turn from a save where it did not occur.
You can also see on the minimap that when the barb units start to spawn earlier (basket archers not recurve) it stunts the AI growth considerably. It seems that when they sense these barb units they stop growing new cities and the game becomes very passive.
I have also noted that there has been activity on the German language forum with posts about bug fixes and updates, will those be released here?
Thanks.

 

[pie_at]

ok, thanks for that info! this is crazy and has to be stopped. I'll check that.

About your question about the update in the german forum. sorry, I will post a small upgade for the BETA as soon as I've changed the Barbarian bowmen behaviour

there are some other fixes too. and the latest translation files from my PAE online-text-tool.

 

[Manarch]

Hello,

In my case, the number of archers was much lower following a logical curve considering the parameters: 3-4 odds around turn 500, random big map, standard barbarian setting.
Speaking of, the AI turn delay was always between 1-2min, considering I keep the map sizes at big and below to not increase it too much. Nothing out of the ordinary, I haven't installed the game on the most high-performing computer.

Now, I saw some troubles reported with diseappearing buildings, which made me think of a similar problem I had when recruting mercenaries. It was in a turn packed with complicated battles, so I reloaded it and it happened that the units just bought were no longer present in the cities, but the buying costs had nontheless risen.
Strangely, it had a retroactive action on saves from the same turn (the buying costs also were up, although, they were from before the initial purchase) and each time I reloaded when having re-bought units at the upgraded cost, those disappeared under the same conditions.
However, restarting the entire game restaured everything to normal. It's worth noticing that I was fiddling a lot with the minimizing when playing, even if I know it messes things up.

Pie (or someone else), are the game descriptions updated to their latest settings, especially regarding civics? I have the feeling that some contain infos no longer in use, as per exemple the mercenarism civic talking about +1 for mercenary post and -25% production cost for units in one typ, and -25% cost for buying mercenaries in another.

 

[tot]

ok, thanks for that info! this is crazy and has to be stopped. I'll check that.

About your question about the update in the german forum. sorry, I will post a small upgade for the BETA as soon as I've changed the Barbarian bowmen behaviour

there are some other fixes too. and the latest translation files from my PAE online-text-tool.

Sounds great, if you need any more info I will be happy to provide. Looking forward to the update.

 

[pie_at]

@Manarch: oh damn, strategy text is wrong.... thx for that info... I thiink there is no need for those strategy texts... I should put them out (like those unit and building strategy texts).

 

[pie_at]

thx manarch, this was a good tip. I think those strategy texts are needless. I give them out and reduce translation objects by 52 texts.

so now French translation is by 90% now! And this means, only those pedia texts are open, but there is really no need for a translation. Everything else for gaming fun in the game is translated. Great!

 

[tot]

Just wondering if there is any update on a timeline for the patch supplying the bug fix. Thanks.

 

[pie_at]

Yes, my target is: THIS WEEK!
Just the update. not the final full version.

 

[tot]

Thank you for the update.

I am also wondering if I am missing something;
Is it possible to get slaves without war? I know that there is an event to purchase slaves once you have a market, but to build that first market you must have both enslavement tech and war against a neighbour? Is this correct?
I feel like this is a big misrepresentation of the slave economy of the ancient world and the timing in game makes it very awkward. You may want to delay an early war until enslavement to ensure slaves to boost your economy, but this forces an artificially peaceful first hundred or so turns. Also, having slaves tied to a tech (Enslavement) seems to suggest that slaves appear around this time, rather there are references to slavery in some of the oldest texts we know of. The game should also acknowledge the existence of other types of slaves; debt slaves, criminal slaves, children sold into bondage, etc.

I believe that a civilization with enough capital should be able to always have maxed slaves in all cities. Throughout history slavery formed the backbone of the economy in many parts of the world. Many of these civilizations went hundreds if not thousands of years without mass conquest and were able to uphold their slave based economy and as it stands the only model represented is slaves as prisoners of war.

Thus I propose:

• Slaves by enslavement to exist from the start of the game.
• Detach the ability to purchase slaves and the economic boost from the Slave Market. (Slave Market not required for events)
• The ability to purchase slaves the same way as you can recruit/hire mercenaries.
• The percentage chance of obtaining slaves is increased by Enslavement.
• The percentage chance of slave revolts is decreased by Enslavement.
• Additional events to allow the peaceful purchase of slaves without war.
• Increase in the chance for the purchase event to happen.
• Allow emigrants to be converted into slaves (perhaps a 1>2 conversion)
  
• Event to enslave religious minorities in cities. (Religious Ejector could have a chance to enslave minority cultures, provide slaves, and avoid revolt)
• Additional civic options to boost/outlaw the birth of new slaves. (Persians outlawed slavery; Agricultural economy may have self supporting slave populations)
• Pillaging improvements provide reduced money but chance of slave units.

Some combination of these would better represent slavery as an institution of the ancient world and allow passive or remote civs to bolster their economy.


Apologies if I have missed something,
tot

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

You can find them in flotsam.

 

[Manarch]

Slaves can be traded as ressource from others civs, covering thus the production bonus for the concerned buildings. For now, possessing slave markets gains the civ an addititional income strictly speaking. And slaves can also be captured from barbarian units, which are still present at the time enslavement is usually researched (at least for me).
These are interesting suggestions. May I suggest linking building slave markets or buying slave units with the trade ressource?
As for my belief, there is too little risks from largely using slavery. I wouldn't be opposed to an increase of the probability of revolts or deaths. Mainly revolts because it's funnier.

On a previous topic, I quite liked to have the remainders of the strategy texts, but ok if you think it's better without. On this point, finally managed to hit the 5th promo of anything, so it was only bad luck. For exemple, the fact it's only acquirable throught combat would be a perfect piece of info to put forward under the pedias entry of the aforementioned promotion. As it is, it's a bit buried in the concept entry.

A question on the garrison promotion, does the [concept-promotion] description of its bonii against types of units (archery units at lvl 1, spear units at lvl 2...) still apply or is it outdated info?

 

[pie_at]

No, I think the first slaves ever, they were from other clans. other villages. other tribes. I compare the beginning of a civ with a clan or nomads. A clan kills people in debt or criminals instead of using as slaves. I am sure, slavery is a product of bigger civs. city states. with a bigger economy. otherwise you won't need slaves. And 5000 BC I don't know any city state. only small settlements.

The 5th promotion: good idea, but what do you think, should I enable the 5th level for the player to choose?

garrison promotion: you'r right. It's old and I put it out from the pedia. It makes no sense, because those advantages also concerns fighting in open fields.

 

[Manarch]

No, as hard as it is to refuse an easiest way to play, I believe that a gain such as an academy should be exceptionnal. The best a player must be able of doing to access it is focusing the relevant promotions, which is an appropriate level of commitment. Then a bit of luck on the side.
Rationalizing it, I suppose training generations of soldiers in a specific type of warfare demands an heavy environmental incentive. Moreover, letting it as such supplement better the already quite-generous-in-odds system of promoting units based on the surrounding tiles of their native city.

Sorry for the naive question, how does the distribution of entries works exactly? For most it's straightforward, but what discriminate the texts used in the main interface from the complementary texs of the pedia for objects that have uses in both? What I wonder is how to add extra info in order to explicit some mechanismes without encumbering the main game entries. If I understood it, it's the purpose of the key_[X]_strategy?

 

[pie_at]

Ok. so, Ill better put a help text to those promos V. Thanks for that input!

To show other information then the mechanics works with strategy texts or help texts. I deleted all of them because, when changing health in the xml structure you have to change all the strategy and help texts too. and I already see its benefits. why should I show it twice?

 

[tot]

No, I think the first slaves ever, they were from other clans. other villages. other tribes. I compare the beginning of a civ with a clan or nomads. A clan kills people in debt or criminals instead of using as slaves. I am sure, slavery is a product of bigger civs. city states. with a bigger economy. otherwise you won't need slaves. And 5000 BC I don't know any city state. only small settlements.

According to wikipedia at least, in the code of Hammurabi and Ur-Nammu slaves are attested to; there is no reason in my eyes to believe that these codes initiated slavery, as both of these codes refer to rules around slavery, indicating it pre-existed and was significant enough to need regulation.
Hammurabi's code as translated from (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp)

15. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.
16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.
17. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.
18. If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be returned to his master.
19. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.
20. If the slave that he caught run away from him, then shall he swear to the owners of the slave, and he is free of all blame.

While it does seem possible that the first slaves ever were the result of raiding parties with the intent of slaving, considering the multitude of other ways a person could become a slave it seems strange to focus solely on prisoners of war.
(https://web.archive.org/web/2019032....org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm)

Some Egyptians were sold into slavery because of debts or sold themselves to escape poverty.

To add to this, slave merchants would travel to wherever they could sell their wares, same as any other merchant. If you as a ruler have the desire to purchase slaves, I see no reason why a merchant wouldn't supply them.

My biggest problem here is where the mechanic comes in the timeline and the idea that to begin building a slave based economy you require a single slave. From this single slave you can build a market, and with luck you can get an event to procure additional slaves. However if you do not get a single slave, or if your market fails to offer you additional slaves, you are effectively locked out of this mechanic. I do not believe this reflects the realities of the age, as far as we seem to know slavery was pre-historic.

As you said Pie

I think the first slaves ever, they were from other clans. other villages. other tribes.

Currently slaves come after many more complex ideas or systems;

• Hieroglyphics & Cuneiform
• The Wheel
• Organised Religion
• Dynastic government
• Smelting

And in my eyes the most glaring:

• Mercenaries

Why is a ruler able to buy trained warriors, organise an attack on a distant land or sell government forces; but they cannot buy and sell slaves?

These are interesting suggestions. May I suggest linking building slave markets or buying slave units with the trade ressource?

I think this is a good direction; if you have access to the slave resource you should be able to buy and sell slaves freely.
However I do still believe there need to be additional ways to procure slaves outside of warfare.

tot

edit:

As for my belief, there is too little risks from largely using slavery. I wouldn't be opposed to an increase of the probability of revolts or deaths. Mainly revolts because it's funnier.

I thought I should reply to this as well; I agree that the human player has a much better grasp of how to use and micro slaves, but I do not believe that the risk is too little.
What risks do you believe are not represented? Large scale slave revolts are extremely rare in the ancient world.
As a human player using large stacks of slaves as workers runs the risk of their conversion to insurgents in the event of unlucky mercenary spawns. Using max slaves per pop in a city runs the risk of disease or spies tanking city pop and causing a revolt.
These seem to be fair and balanced, but I am interested in what additional drawbacks slaves could have.

 

[Manarch]

@pie_at
It's viable only if all relevant informations are contained in the object's entry and if this entry isn't overly lenghty for the main interface. I would like sometimes to have some indirect relations spelled out in their pedia's entry, like the fact that [x religion opens the way for x buildings or x improvement costs x golds or is buildable by x units]. In short, all the things that aren't necessary to have under the eyes at all time but useful to know quite quickly (I may have more solid exemples later).
In any case, it'ld be best to wait that everything else is sorted out before adding extra complications in treatment, so you're right. Maybe a purpose to save for /after the next release?
Thank you for always having an eye on the concerns regarding the mod, it's very nice of you to handle the work of discussing everything. Have a good day.

@tot
Oh no it was only from a gameplay pov. The impediments I wish for are on scale scarcely seen(reported) in history. If I must, I would say that as far as I know, slave-based or slave-free economy haven't proven to be the deciding factor of a "ancient civilisation" success irl, while it tends to be in pae. But its balance is good enough as it is, only my personal tastes are speaking here.

 

[pie_at]

Please tot, have a look when the CODEX Hammurapi has been written and look into the tech tree of PAE.
We are talking about first(!) enslavement. It was a development. At those time there was no currency. Please go more backwards to the beginning of slavery. In PAE there is such a development of using slaves as you try to argument: temple, mining, field, house slaves.... even until fire savers of Roman cities.

and no, I won't make them buyable/creatable because this is a strategic game and you should handle with the amount you get. Otherwise I don't need those features like adding slaves into temples, schools, manufactories, minings, bordells etc. Slaves will increase the upgrade time of villages (improvement) and they do increase latifundi. So, it would be an exploit to have endless slaves.

And about slavery in a peaceful goverment, I think this is almost a contradiction in terms. It won't last long.

 

[pie_at]

Yes, manarch, let's have a look with the next beta patch.